Question: where do the Surf Air customers live? From their web site, most of their flights appear to be from San Carlos to either Tahoe or southern California. Are most of their customers Bay Area residents or are they out-of-towners visiting the Bay Area? If a large portion of this companies customers are local residents, seems to me that the easiest way to solve the problem is to appeal to the customers to boycott the company until they quiet down.

SurfAir is oversubscribed by people for whom it provides a needed and useful service - there is zero chance of a boycott by happy customers.

I'm a local resident and former SurfAir customer (stopped using the service when I switched jobs and didn't need to commute to LA). I was active on these boards before, and the message is still the same:

We are awash in a sea of air traffic. There are jets for SFO, SJC and all kinds of private and commuter planes in our airspace. It's ridiculous to single out SurfAir, a valuable and popular business serving thousands of customers. They're a drop in the bucket. I suspect these complaints are more about jealousy and anger because SurfAir customers are (wrongly) perceived to be jet-setting rich people. Which is ironic considering SMC is one of the wealthiest places in America.

I think the issue is Surf Air uses those turboprop planes which seems much louder than jets. I seem to notice them more a lot. I'm not sure if it is because it flies lower or what. It feels like there's a lawn mover flying over head.

Matt:

It's not about jealousy. It's about a bunch of wealthy, self entitled people that don't like the planes flying over their homes. It screws up their delusion that they live someplace rural.

The Surf Air planes are considerably noisier than jets. It is the frequency of these noisy planes that is the issue.

Entitled Atherton is moving, yet one more time, to move airplane noise from their privileged community. Then, they tell people that there no shifting of airplane noise. This is getting really old on their part.

Apologies for the typos.

Residents of West London under the Heathrow flightpath suffer much worse. You might live in exclusive Kew or Richmond, but the 747 over your head has it landing gear down as it's so low.

And in the early days, some planes jettisoned their bathroom waste for touchdown.

So Atherton, it could be worse, and property values can still go higher.

@really?: What do the residents of West London have to do with the residents here on the Peninsula? Interesting information, but it has nothing to do with solving the noise problems here. Provide me a solution to the noise problems here, and I'll listen.

Pearl:

I live under the flight path as well, and it's not a problem. Hence the flippant advice.

Whiners!

Increased traffic (air, road, rail, bicycle), and water restrictions, are all part of the price we pay for living in a place that's still so much better than anywhere else that people want to be nowhere else but here.

I also live quite near the SurfAir flight path:

1 - each flight passes over in less than 60 seconds

2 - more and more of the flights are flying "clean" with wheels and flaps up which means even shorter transit time

3 - at no time are the flights louder than a lawn blower next door.

4 - I am totally opposed to solving any perceived Atherton problems by redirecting flights elsewhere.

SurfAir stills has some operational alternatives to pursue like steeper descent paths in non-IFR conditions and conversion to 5 bladed props ( lower tip speed and hence lower noise levels)

There is no question the Pilatus is noisier than most other planes it's size including jets.

Surf Air reps have been lying throughout the whole process .ie: "Their will be no more than 2 flights a day over any given homes"

It was suggested at one of the public meetings that legal action be taken. I would support that and contribute.

The so called clean approach, flaps up, wheels up, only goes to 3 miles from the airport. What about us in Fair Oaks, I would like everyone to come over to Fair Oaks and listen on a Sunday morning, afternoon, evening

On April 14, the following exchange took place between Jetman and Peter Carpenter in the comments section of The Almanac...

Question (Jetman):

You have been working with Surfair for close to a year now, to get them to fly "clean"... why isn't it working?

Answer (Peter Carpenter):

"I have given them advice but I am not working with them. They have elected not to take my advice.

I suspect that pilots appreciate that flying the IFR approach and putting your wheels and flaps down earlier is, as is proven by the facts, safer. Late deployment of flaps and wheels increases the odds of not being properly configured for landing".


"Surf Air adds 31 flights a week at San Carlos Airport"
The Almanac ~ Apr 14, 2015 Web Link

@menlo voter You say to @Matt, "It's not about jealousy. It's about a bunch of wealthy, self entitled people that don't like the planes flying over their homes. It screws up their delusion that they live someplace rural." The complaints are well justified. It sounds as if you have some resentment toward people who you perceive as self entitled. That does not nullify their right to complain.

I'm affected by the tremendous noise and I don't live in Atherton. I'm upset by the arrogant lack of concern shown by Jeff Potter and company. I'm tired of the increase of noise and of businesses that act as if they are entitled to ignore the health and well-being of others. I am glad that a group of Atherton residents have the resources to speak up because at least their voices are heard.

Scott - So what exactly would you like Surf Air to do?

Stop using San Carlos?

Fly over someone else's home?

Or??

Scott:

Surfair frequently flies over my home. Thanks to Atherton whiners. I don't mind though. It also flies over my office. They simply are not that noisy. The gardeners in my neighborhood make far more noise with their leaf blowers than Surfair's planes. You have thousands of planes flying over your neighborhood (I'm guessing) why are Surfair flights such a problem?

Suggest complaints be directed at the FAA, They need to take a position for the scam SA, pulled by getting a part 135 Rating,

Suggest discussion start around closing SQL, As someone said most people didn't even know it was there until SA showed up. It's a shame one bad apple ruins it for all the good GA pilots.

Most importantly, follow the money, meaning the Venture Capital firms, If you have money with the firms that fund SA, consider moving your money to a different co.

And finally to the insurance companies who issue policies to SA, It will only take one accident to devastate your bottom line, Your exposure/ liability goes up exponentially with the establishment of the working group. That officially constitutes having been noticed. You might want to go back to your underwriters to discuss what constitutes notice and the ramifications.

Resident:

I don't even know where to begin you are so clearly misinformed.

No "scam" has been pulled. Surfair is operating under rules created by the FAA.

SQL isn't going to be closed. They have taken funds from the FAA which specifically forbids the closure of this airport. It's been discussed before, do a little research. It was back when whiners in Redwood Shores thought they could shut down the airport after they purchased homes in the flight pattern of the airport [Portion removed; please make your argument respectfully.]. As previously noted, if people didn't know SQL was there before Surfair started operations, they are either unobservant or stupid. SQL is right next to 101 which I'm sure most, if not all, residents of this area have driven by. [Portion removed; please make your argument respectfully.]

The Pilatus PC-12 is the safest single engine aircraft in the world. The likelihood of an accident with this aircraft is extremely low. So insurers are unconcerned, I'm sure.

[Portion removed; please be respectful.]

An excerpt from an LA Times article by Andrea Chang, Apr 15:

Surf Air, the members-only airline, is poised for a growth spurt - LA Times
Web Link

..."Besides flying to new cities, the start-up is offering more frequent flights and new routes between existing destinations.

To accommodate the anticipated increase, Surf Air is adding to its fleet of eight Swiss-made Pilatus PC-12 planes, placing a large order for dozens of new planes. It will have 15 by the end of this year and, by 2020, will have at least 65 planes in operation.

"We foresee ourselves on an hourly basis in a couple years," Potter said."

For those of us directly under the flight path it's very noisy. Surf Air doesn't seem to care much about that. Peter, you asked Scott what he expected Surf Air to do. I wouldn't recommend redirecting them over someone else's house, but perhaps they could purchase quieter airplanes. I've lived here for many years and was never bothered by the planes until the Pilatus starting flying. Menlo Voter, you seem to think they're no worse than a leaf blower, but does your neighborhood allow the leaf blowers to start up at 6:15 in the morning?

There are many ways Surf Air could work with local officials and residents to mitigate the noise problem, but I don't think they will unless they're forced to.

People who live in Fair Oaks feel they are underrepresented and don't have a legitimate voice from their community leaders. Partly because they live in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County and although we have a Menlo Park or Redwood City address we are not officially in their city limits.

To our County representatives please establish an avenue of outreach to our neighbors. There is no question we bear the brunt of the noise. At times it is unbearable.

It has been said SA will try to make a cleaner plane configuration approach but that cleaner/quieter approach stops at or near the Atherton border. The closer you get to Fair Oaks and the airport the lower and noisier the planes get.

I would like to say thank you to the Atherton community leaders for spearheading this effort and offer you our sincere thanks for keeping us involved. Since we here in Fair Oaks are not incorporated we have to rely on our County representatives. I implore our representatives to get involved, stay involved and give us fair and equal representation.

There will soon be 106 flights a week and climbing starting at 7:30 in the morning and going to 9:30 at night. Also please keep in mind there is a matching number of departure flights for every incoming flight. Now we're up to 212 operations a week.That's 30 a day.

Fair Oaks suffers the most but seem to have the quietest voice. I don't want to be cynical but we also have the lowest financial demographic.

I am requesting our county representatives to set up noise db measuring instruments in various areas along the flight path in Fair Oaks and be upfront and transparent with the results. I think we will see excessive levels beyond what one would expect for a reasonable quality of life. Please feel free to pass this e-mail on to your county supervisors, FAA officials, and airport representatives.

FWIW

While Surf Air certainly flew the most PC-12 operations into KSQL (San Carlos) there were nearly 60 operations by PC-12's NOT belonging to Surf Air (including one by my old tail number). Which is almost 25% of the PC-12 operations oput of the airport.

The PC-12 is an extraordinary aircraft and is VERY popular. So please don't blame Surf Air for all the flights you are hearing. there are LOTS and LOTS of these magnificent aircraft out there. They are cheaper to operate than there popular predecessor King Air 200 (which has TWO TurboProp engines)

All this data is available on FlightAware if you'fd care to look.

SO does that mean you will all start complaining 25% less?

Roy Thiele-Sardina
ASEL, AMEL, MEI, SEI, CPL

MLK:

I don't know what time the leaf blowers start in the morning. I'm at work at 6:15. My office is right near Hurlingame and Bay Rd. The Surfair flights come directly over my office at what I would hazard to guess is an even lower altitude than they are passing over your house. They don't bother me at all. They just aren't that noisy. Had a 747 pass over my house yesterday flaps and gear down and it was low. Now that was noisy.

Menlo Voter,

Either you did not learn to play well with others, or you have a vested interest in SA.

As suggested/required in your previous posts from the Almanac

[Portion removed, Please be respectful]

My suggestion is to spread the flights laterally. Why wouldn't this be the most fair way to approach the problem,

We are up to 6 flights a day in Felton Gables and apparently this will double?

Menlo Park Voter:

I have no vested interest in Surfair. What I have is no patience for histrionic people. We're talking about a few flights a day, maybe more to come. Flights that are no louder than the leaf blowers regularly used in the areas of those overflights. So what? There are thousands of flights going over head every day. If you really have trouble with aircraft noise you're living in the wrong area. We have three international airports and multiple smaller airports in this area. Do you honestly think you aren't going to have aircraft flying overhead? In my opinion, that expectation is stupid and beyond unrealistic.

In my opinion the people whining the loudest about these planes are self entitled people that think the world revolves around them and they should be able to demand that the world not make noise so they aren't disturbed. Totally unrealistic.

A clinical diagnosis of suffering from HPD as evidenced by ranting posts with multiple redactions aside.

I am trying to focus on and offer a solution to what appears to be a big enough problem to draw 750 signatures on a petition. My belief is 750 signatures probably represents several thousand people uncomfortable with SA.

My suggestion to SA would be to laterally separate flights with enough of a spread to share the noise impact equally. Even a 1000' spread at 1,000-1500' agl would solve the problem for most people. This way everyone suffers a little bit. If the noise does not bother you why continue to slam those trying to have a rational discussion for solutions to a problem.

Menlo park voter:

so what you're suggesting is that the noise be pushed out of the wealthy neighborhood into less well healed neighborhoods, right? Just supports what I said about self entitled people. Thanks.

By the way, a flight just passed directly over my house, the "noise" lasted all of about 15 seconds. "unbearable." Surfair is already spreading their flights out.

What is the incredibly loud airplane noise we hear near our home in East Palo Alto, west of 101? We've been here 20 years and it's only recentl that it's gotten incredibly loud. We are used to the Stanford Hospital helicopter flights, which happen at all hours. But this is different, and it sounds like it's very nearby.

As I type this I'm hearing a plane that sounds much more typical of this area's flight noise - it doesn't sound like a film's special effects.

@Menlo Park Voter

Moving an aircraft "laterally" as you suggest is DANGEROUS. The reason we all line up with the runway while on approach is for safety. if something happens to the aircraft you continue forward towards the runway. If you are NOT lined up with the runway (laterally offset as you suggest) it makes it harder to land safely.

In an IFR (Instrument Flight Restrictions) landing you simply CAN NOT deviate laterally. in a VFR (Visual flight Restrictions) approach it's simply dangerous to do so.

As I pointed out in an earlier post. there are MANY PC-12 aircraft based in thebay area (3 that I know of at Palo Alto alone) so all the noise is NOT from SA alone.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Our dog is for some reason scared by the noise of these planes when he is outside and only these planes for the most part. They are definitely louder than other air traffic. Surf Air is definitely a nuisance to the area and it makes no difference who the people are who are effected (rich, poor or whatever) as to their right to complain. I would be interested to hear what the noise monitoring shows as to the recorded levels. If there is no noise ordinance they are violating then either the rules need to be changed or we accept there is nothing that can be done. Still, the right to complain seems like a human right!

complainer:

accept there is nothing to be done. Surfair is operating legally.

It sounds like your a pilot and I'm sure you know you can safely approach from any direction under Visual Flight Rules. North, South, East or West.

You just need to align yourself to be in the pattern to end up a safe distance on a straight in final approach given the configuration of your aircraft.

Since you fly the Pilatus if you enter the pattern what distance are you abeam the tower in the pattern on downwind leg, on cross wind and then a turn for a safe final.

Since most of the complaints are coming from people under the flights from the South. From what I keep hearing the Pilatus is a very versatile craft and it can safely come in at several miles out with a fairly wide lateral approach and adjust for final. As I said a 1000' lateral separation would eliminate having to fly multiple aircraft continually over the same homes.
I realize the closer you get to the airport the less flexibilty you have.

I'm not a Pilatus expert but there has to be a Safe distance that the SA flights could align themselves for final. I have heard from SA they are already doing this and from where I live it has helped. My concern is with so many new flights planned it needs to be more consistent.

I'm not here to argue, I am a pilot but not familiar with the Pilatus, Can we all keep this civil, not personal but educational for those not as familiar with the technicalities.

Again I understand IFR approaches are the exception.

Please use this forum as an oppurtunity to peacefully discuss and inform.

Has anyone questioned San Carlos Airport about switching the runway take-off and landing. If the approach was from the Foster City side rather than the South, this discussion would evaporate.

" If the approach was from the Foster City side rather than the South, this discussion would evaporate."

Perfect - just give our/your problem to someone else and it "evaporates".

really?:

runway landing and take off directions are determined in part by wind direction. The prevailing wind at SQL is from the northwest, hence that is the direction towards which they land. That gives the planes a head wind which allows for lower ground speeds meaning shorter landing run out. If they land with a tail wind it results in a longer landing run out and safety is decreased.

By the way, the problem won't "evaporate". It will just be pushed over Foster City and Redwood Shores. Then the discussion will be those folks complaining.

I'm not sure why spreading it out equally is pushing it out on to someone else.

You can't choose which runway to use, but you can choose how you enter the pattern.

ie; flights from Truckee come in from the NE, Where do they turn for final?

Peter I've read your credentials. The most impressive I've ever seen, I trust your knowledge, just wonder why you keep saying we're trying to push our problem on to someone else. I think we're trying to spread the problem out equally.

Referring to VFR conditions only of course

"why you keep saying we're trying to push our problem on to someone else. I think we're trying to spread the problem out equally."

Because Surf Air flights are just a very small part of the local air traffic. Most of that air traffic going to SFO avoids Atherton so my opinion is that we should not now dump some or all of the Surf Air traffic away from Atherton and onto those communities that already have a lot more air traffic. And low and over the Bay is not a good solution for Surf Air traffic coming from the South because the area low and over the Bay has lots of general aviation traffic - most of it flying under see and be seen VFR rules. Surf Air prefers flying the only available IFR approach to San Carlos even in VFR because it is safer - they are under positive control and the controller is looking very carefully for other traffic.

I admit my comments about switching runways were flippant and provocative, but major airports do this all over the world, specifically to moderate the noise effects on the communities they pass over. I'm still of the belief that Surf-Air is negligable and this is a storm in a tea-cup, but I also appreciate that between OAK, SFO, SJC, Moffett and San Carlos, there's not much flexiblity on approach patterns.

I live in Atherton next to Felton Gables and get about 6 flights a day overhead. Just curious where anyone else lives and how many flights are going directly or close to overhead

Moving the flights laterally would push some over Lindenwood.

I wonder how many flights Lindenwood is getting now?

If Surf Air stays 100% on AMEBY IFR approach with the new schedule coming up that would put around 30 flights a day over the exact same houses.

0 flights would go over Lindenwood?

If the flights were spread out from El Camino and Encinal to the West incrementally over Lindenwood to Bay Rd. to the East that would solve the single path congestion problem by using a safe lateral separation

[(And not pushing Atherton's problem over the low income areas as seems to be many peoples concern.)]

That would also allow SA to keep their promise of not flying more than 2 flights a day over the same house.

It's a win win,

For the record, the current IFR route to San Carlos brings planes directly over the western edge of Lindenwood. At my home in the center of Lindenwood I can see and hear any plane that is flying the IFR approach to San Carlos. I would not be bothered if they flew directly over my house but
1) I recognize that each individual has a different sensitivity and tolerance for different kinds and levels of noise.

2) Deviation from the precise IFR route is inherently less safe albeit only very marginally so in VFR conditions.

How does the FAA allow surf air to call itself a flight club. These clubs were formed so pilots who could not afford planes group together and buy one, it would seem to me that 35 flights a week should be considered a commercial airline. I don't think San Carlos airport can take commercial airplanes.

"How does the FAA allow surf air to call itself a flight club."

Surf Air does not operate as a flight club; it operates as a commercial carrier.

As a commercial operator Surf Air is guaranteed access to San Carlos.

Surfair isn't much different than an air taxi service which is a commercial service. They've been flying air taxi's out of SQL for a long time. Also, Palo Alto, Hayward and Oakland (the civil aviation part). The only difference between Surfair and an air taxi service is that they have set flights not on demand and you pay a monthly fee instead of pay as you go.

@resident

Currently under VFR from the South (which is what SA flies) you would be a straight in approach on VFR or IFR. you would NOT do a base leg entry into KSQL. In fact only coming from the East (KTRK or KSTK) or west is there a base entry for the approach. and that is to a hold at AMEBY. nobody would do a downwind entry to KSQL coming from the south.

So the answer is that they will and SHOULD continue to operate those flights as the FAA has specified in the IFR approach plates to maximize runway availability in case of an emergency

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Peter,

You mentioned the Ameby approach is over part of Lindenwood. Where does the Ameby approach at 297/298 lie when it hits Atherton, Would it be over Felton Gables or over Lindenwood.

It seems like Lindenwood would be several degrees and 2 or 3,000 laterally off the 297.

I can attest to many flights directly over FG.

"Where does the Ameby approach at 297/298 lie when it hits Atherton,"

The San Carlos IFR flight path between Willow and Marsh is directly above Middlefield Road.

Is the approach between Willow and Marsh a heading of 297 or?

Here is the IFR approach plate;

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1505/09219RY30.PDF

Is there a street map overlay?

Thanks for your help on this, just trying to educate myself, hopefully others will appreciate it also,

SurfAir noise is less intrusive for me than the hovering & circling Cessnas which fly low over the area between Valparaiso & San Francisquito Creek & between Alameda & El Camino. If these are student pilots, stay over the bay, please.

One flew over my house this afternoon enroute to nowhere, just circling east of Hillview School. Is this an instructor giving lessons or a recreational pilot? I don't know. The plane needs a new muffler. I prefer S.A.s (because they fly over & are gone) instead of hearing some leisure plane noise that lingers overhead far longer than if it were actually moving from one point to another.

Peter I am not sure San Carl's can operate commercial air flights. They has no TSA, security screening et al. To operate commercial flights you need this. I believe that to use surf air you need to join a club.

Commercial flights fromSan Carlos do NOT require TSA screening.

Bob:

Surfair is a Part 135 carrier. They are not required to have TSA screening.

I don't think you have to join a "club" but membership is required.

Web Link

Just to add a bit here..... We have absolutely noticed an increase in airplane noise over the past year - I don't know if it is from Surf Air or other planes or could it be the downing of so many of our oaks from SOD that the insulation is gone? It is sad though that every single spot of the bay area is noisy now. Someone in the neighborhood started flying a noisy drone around and I started throwing rocks! I cant throw rocks as high as the airplanes are flying but if I could I would!!!

A couple of comments:

While there is no screening of Surf Air travelers, members must pass the Trusted Traveller review.

When Runway 30 is active at KSQL, fixed wing traffic flies right base over the water. However, helicopters fly left base near 10, zigzagging away from houses when necessary.

So is it the same group complaining about airplane noise that is against electrification of Caltrain (which would make Caltrain alot quieter)?

It is the same people who complain about everything.

"Is there a street map overlay?"

Yes, a Forum poster created and posted a beautiful one but I cannot find it - perhaps you can.

Peter,

Let me know if you have a VFR flight chart. It might show up there.

resident:

here is a link to a VFR sectional: Web Link

It isn't very helpful in terms of identifying the underlying streets.

thanks for the chart you're right too hard to read roads, Anyone from the airport or ifr pilots know if AMEBY flight path is from Willow Rd. to Marsh, Looks like a heading of 297 degrees

Looking at this composite map that shows the location of CUZUP it appears that the 297 deg IFR flight path to San Carlos runs roughly parallel with Middlefield and begins West of Middlefield until about Ravenswood and then goes East of Middlefield about Marsh. This is also my perception of the planes flying this approach.

Web Link

So would that put it at the intersection of Oakgrove and Alma, over Laurel and Glenwood, over Felton Gables, on the West side of Encinal then just West of the corner of Marsh and Middlefield direct over Fair Oaks neighborhood, direct to SQL, Does it skip Lindenwod then.

Must be somebody out there that knows exactly the ifr Ameby track, through Menlo Park, Atherton, Fair Oaks,

No, it does not cross Ravenswood at Alma. As I notedI think that it intersects Middlefield about at Ravenswood and then flies down and very slightly East of Middlefield until Marsh.


Look at the SJC reader web site at a Surf Air Flight - if it is on the IFR approach you can zoom in on the map and see the roads.

Web Link

Peter,

[Looking at this composite map]

Sounds like the Ameby ifr flight path starts East of Middlefield at Ravenswood.

That would put it over Lindenwood between Middlefield and Marsh, Not over FG at all.

"Sounds like the Ameby ifr flight path starts East of Middlefield at Ravenswood."

The IFR flight path starts at AMEBY (which is in Mountain View) at 3900 ft on a course of 297 deg and passes over CUZUP (which is in Palo Alto just South of the county line and part way between ECR and Middlefield) at 2000 ft.

As the 297 deg course proceeds directly to San Carlos it descends to land on a 3.05 deg glide slope.

At Felton Bables it appears to be directly over Middlefield - which means a plane on this approach which would be at about 1400 ft at that point would be visible and heard both in Felton Gables and Lindenwood.

Watching actual Surf Air flight paths yesterday they seem to be spread out laterally rather than precisely on the IFR flight path - as there were VFR conditions.

This morning we have IFR conditions and I was able to capture a Surf Air flight on the exact IFR course:
Web Link

Hope this resolves any questions you have.

P.S. The flight track captured above crossed Marsh at 1300 ft.

As to Surf Air

I finally tracked down the location of the GPS AMEBY IFR flight path from MTN. View to San Carlos Airport.

[Peter] The Ameby IFR flight path does not get close to Lindenwood and does not fly between Willow and Marsh,

You would not see a surf air plane flying the Amneby at (1,000'-1400' AGL) flight path if you were in Lindenwood

Believe me If Surf Air flew over the middle of Lindenwood 12 soon to be 20 times a day you would hear about it from a lot of residents.

This is why certain people insist the planes not fly over less affluent areas, They would have to fly over Lindenwood first to get there. Better things left the way they are right? Use the affluency card.

Ameby tracks from the MP Library at 297 degrees over Ravenswood, Over Glenwood, Over Encinal, over Felton Gables over Jennings at Middlefield then continuing on 297 degrees over N Fair Oaks, over the Redwood City Old Courthouse near Kaiser Hospital then across 101 to final approach to the Airport.

We had 12 flights directly over our house yesterday, It's too many, too noisy and not what we were promised.

An increase in the number of flights is set to happen at the end of June, Good luck Enjoying your afternoons in your backyard,

Where are our representatives/ working group. Can we get a public update, How about a little transparency guys???

Resident:

who promised you there would be fewer flights over your house?

resident - We disagree regarding the IFR flight path. Here is what I posted on May 29:
The IFR flight path starts at AMEBY (which is in Mountain View) at 3900 ft on a course of 297 deg and passes over CUZUP (which is in Palo Alto just South of the county line and part way between ECR and Middlefield) at 2000 ft.

As the 297 deg course proceeds directly to San Carlos it descends to land on a 3.05 deg glide slope.

At Felton Bables it appears to be directly over Middlefield - which means a plane on this approach which would be at about 1400 ft at that point would be visible and heard both in Felton Gables and Lindenwood.

Watching actual Surf Air flight paths yesterday they seem to be spread out laterally rather than precisely on the IFR flight path - as there were VFR conditions.

This morning we have IFR conditions and I was able to capture a Surf Air flight on the exact IFR course:
Web Link

Hope this resolves any questions you have.

***************
Please provide evidence that the alternative route that you proposed is correct.

Thank you for offering that. I will check w/ SQL and get back back to you. Though It doesn't seem the case as multiple flights up to 8 a day under vfr and ifr conditions fly the exact same path that ends up directly over the middle of Felton Gables. I believe that is the ifr Ameby route.

As an aside at 1400'
I don't think you could hear them much less see these flights from Middlefield. Perhaps the one you caught on flight tracker was one of the vfr lateral flights.

"I don't think you could hear them much less see these flights from Middlefield. "

At 1400 ft over Middlefield I can both see and hear this flights from my Larch Dr Lindenwood home.

"Perhaps the one you caught on flight tracker was one of the vfr lateral flights. "
As I states that flight was in IFR conditions - the base of the clouds was about 900 ft so the plane had to be IFR.

wish i could find the ameby flight path on a google ground map from pa to rc.

also would like to know the new sa schedule when they increase flights later this month.

wonder what the height above the houses are when they get to spring and douglas area,

meno:

using this link: Web Link I just happened to catch an arriving SA flight. It crossed the Spring and Douglas vicinity between 900 and 800 feet. I'm unable to determine if that is AGL or MSL, but it doesn't matter much as that area probably isn't more than 50 feet MSL. So they are effectively the same there.

Thanks for that, I wonder if anyone is representing the local residents, I think it's an unincorporated area.

Are you able to tell the noise db's

I see nothing indicting db's. I looked at the SFO flight tracker as well. I find nothing there that gives noise levels either.

My office is at Hurlingame and Bay and the flights go over us regularly. I don't find them to be that loud. The sound certainly isn't painful and I wouldn't characterize as being any louder than a loud conversation which, I believe, is around 65 db.

The Surf Air working group recently reported a db noise measuring device showed at Holbrook Palmer park that the ambient db's were 48.5-51.5 and the noise db's put out by a Surf Air flight overhead were 68-72, . Exceeding the noise levels as established by the town of Atherton, with 20 flights a day from the South and increasing in Sept. and Nov, this year, You can understand why residents are upset. Surf Air is claiming it will soon have 90 flights a day in the state of Ca. Coming soon to a city near you. Napa, Monterey, Truckee, etc. If you live in or near any of these cities or know someone that does. Tell them to come and listen to how bad the noise is from these planes flying into San Carlos. This particular type of plane the PC-12 has an extremely noisy footprint especially with gear and flaps down.

Suggest you do your own research, I was a general aviation pilot for over 30 years and was never sensitive to GA planes, or large commercial planes. I live in the center of heavy traffic by both. I learned to fly at a military base. It is only after SA showed up have I become aware of and sensitive to both.

I live about two blocks from Holbrook. SA overflies my home regularly. As I've said before, they're just not that loud. Atherton can establish all the noise ordinances it wants. They don't apply to overflying aircraft. People are upset because they want to pretend they live out in the country where it's quiet instead of where they actually live, in the middle of a densely populated area with three near by international airports and numerous smaller airports. It's called unrealistic expectations.

"and the noise db's put out by a Surf Air flight overhead were 68-72,"

Wrong - see Table 5 - the range was 60.3 - 71.5

And to put the Surf Air flights into perspective see TABLE 4

Summary of May 13-14 Noise Sources
Noise Source Count Lmax
Emergency Sirens 3 63.89
Residents 4 66.53
Birds 20 61.02
Dogs 21 81.13
Landscaping 25 76.40
Propeller Aircraft 38 71.48
Train 48 67.66
Jet Aircraft 98 74.64
Roadway 124 77.31
Total 381 -

The longest event recorded was attributed to
landscaping, with a duration of 1,723 seconds.

Dogs, roadway, jet airplanes and landscaping were all louder than Surf Air.

To put this in perspective... At 60.3-71.5dB every single Surfair flight measured, was loud enough to interrupt a normal conversation.

"To put this in perspective... At 60.3-71.5dB every single Surfair flight measured, was loud enough to interrupt a normal conversation."

And so was:

Emergency Sirens 3 63.89
Residents 4 66.53
Birds 20 61.02
Dogs 21 81.13
Landscaping 25 76.40
Propeller Aircraft 38 71.48
Train 48 67.66
Jet Aircraft 98 74.64
Roadway 124 77.31

Which occur at least 300 times more often than Surfair flights.

To put this in perspective... aircraft were the single largest source of noise on the list (jets + props = 136).

Jetman:

the jets and prop planes were always there before. Many more than Surfair. Also your math is a little lacking. There were 381 sources of noise measured. 136 were by aircraft. That leaves 245 other causes. So, aircraft are only 35.7% of the sources of this noise level. Note also that 124 of the sources were roadway noise. That's practically the same as aircraft noise. Are we going to stop people from driving their cars now?

Menlo,

Very few of the 124 roadway noise events were caused by cars in proper working order. Most of the roadway noise events were motorcycles, trucks, and a few cars with faulty or inadequate mufflers.

Should they be forced to stop driving... no. Should they be cited... sure.

"Very few of the 124 roadway noise events were caused by cars in proper working order."

And you know this because?

So Jetman:

do you have anything factual to back up your statement or are you just making things up to suit your narrative?

So I flew the RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 Y approach the other day to see what all the fuss was about. I have never had any of my aircraft based at San Carlos (PAO, SJC and HWD)so it was a first time for that approach.

At 12nm out (Intersection AMEBY the beginning of the approach) I was flying at 3900 ft AGL (the airport is at 5 ft above sea level) which is 1500 ft higher than VFR flight our of Palo Alto airport when I was learning to fly. The approach at 6.2nm calls for 2000 AGL (intersection CUZUP) which is also fairly high (this is north of the Facebook Campus)with a 3 degree descent into the airport. That's the same as the HWD and LVK Glide Slopes. That means that the descent does NOT require a drastic deceleration (quieter) [FWIW the descent into PAO is 3.7 degrees]

While the flightpath does take you over several populated areas, much of the path (at lower altitudes (read noisier)) is over less populated areas.

The number of GA flights into San Carlos per day is lower than PAO, and the approach is higher over the populated areas.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
SEL, MEL, Instrument
N618BD

IFR Ameby approach flys over Mtn. View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Back over Menlo Park, then back over Atherton, then over the Fair Oaks neighborhood onto a final approach to SQL. All densely populated areas.

BTW the AMEBY flight path does not pass over Lindenwood.

Please tell me a non densely populated area under AMEBY.

The 2 biggest problems we face are the noise footprint created by the design of the Pilatus PC-12. It's a design flaw that when originally designed did not not take into account flying at low altitudes over densely populated areas.
This plane was designed to climb fast, go fast, at high altitudes and descend fast, Not fly leasurley and cruise at 1,000-2,000 over densely populated areas, maybe fun for the passengers to experience the scenic route but

Uncomfortable, noisy and dangerous to us on the ground.

I believe SA is flying low to offer a tour effect for the benefit of it's passenger pleasure.

Number 2 is the rapid growth of Surf Air, They are approaching 20 and climbing inbound flights from the south a day into SQL. 7 days a week, It's impossible to enjoy an afternoon with family and friends when you are being buzzed by SA all day.

I live under AMEBY 3 miles out, I hear lots of SQL approach traffic, sep, dep,,piston, turbos, jets, helicopters etc, The PC-12 creates a buzzing drone type noise. You can hear it coming and know exactly that it's a PC-12 over any other plane.

If Surf Air would spread the approach by a few degrees on both side of Ameby on VFR days, I'm quite sure they would eliminate 80% of their noise complaints.

This whole problem would go away if someone has a direct conduit to the FAA so they can revisit SA's part 135 Rating, and reclassify them as a an airline which is what they are rather than an air taxi, air shuttle, flight club, etc. they claim to be. Otherwise you may be seeing Southwest flying VIP passengers into San Carlos,

Menlo Park:

I'm sorry, but safety is not an issue. The PC-12 is the safest single engine aircraft in the world. In addition, it is single pilot certified and Surfair is going the extra mile for safety and flying with two pilots.

As to spreading the flights out on VFR days, they already are. I live near Holbrook park. The flights often come in directly over my home. They also come in further to the east. It varies. Last night we had five in a row come in directly over our house.

The closer one is to SQL the more likely they are to hear the flights. One, because they're lower and two because of the funnel effect. The flights can't spread as far apart the closer to the runway they get.

As I've said before, these aircraft aren't that noisy. The noise study confirms that. There are many more things in our environment that make equivalent or louder noise. We live in an urban area with three international airports and numerous smaller airports. There's going to be a lot of aircraft noise. But, there's also a lot of other noise as well. Why people complain about SA and not the train, traffic or the many other noise makers is beyond me. Other than the possibility that they are seen as an easy target since no one is going to stop driving cars which are producing more noise than SA.

The FAA is unlikely to take away SA's 135. SA is pretty smart and I think they've got it dialed so that they conform. It will take the FAA rewriting the rules for it to change.

Slightly off topic here...was there any change/increase in the air traffic routing over the last 2-3 months overall? I think NextGen went love earlier than that and yet it seems like things got worse recently (above and beyond what SA may be "contributing".)

Back to SA, and regardless of what the db numbers may indicate, pilatus (es) fly lower and more slowly, so are a longer-lasting annoyance overall, at least to me.

Lastly, you can actually track the culprits thanks to a nifty iOS app called flightradar24. Well worth the $3.99.

Pick:

you can also track flights for free via the SFO noise abatement website. Here: Web Link

Click the "Volans" button.

@Menlo Park

I owned a PC-12 (N325MW) and to use the word dangerous with that aircraft is simply a lie and misinformation. Your credibility is diminished by these kind of declarations.

Roy

Roy,

While I agree that the PC-12 is a very safe airplane,

What I referred to as dangerous is that it flies with over 5 tons of metal and 1,000 lbs. of fuel at 1,000' over homes and schools 20 times a day.

Even lower by the time it passes over parts of Redwood City on final approach.

You said "While the flight path does take you over several populated areas, (much) of the path at lower altitudes is over less populated areas."

Where are these much less populated areas?

For the record the claim that the airport was there first doesn't always hold water.

The residents of Redwood Shores were able to get SQL to implement noise abatement procedures.

N.A.P. were also implemented at Reid HillView, SJC, and most Airports have some type of restrictions.

Menlo Park:

those noise abatement procedures were put in place after the residents of Redwood Shores tried to shut SQL down. The FAA wouldn't let them, so the airport, being good neighbors implemented noise abatement procedures.

What noise abatement procedures would you have SA implement that they already aren't? They already spread out their flights on VFR days. They are already deploying flaps and gear later. so, what else?

Again, as to safety, you're being disingenuous. There are thousands of flights passing over our populated areas that weigh a lot more and carry much more fuel. Safety is not an issue with the PC-12 any more than it is with the other aircraft overflights. I'd be more concerned about the overflights of small piston driven single GA flights. Their accident rates are much higher.

Relatively safe yes, But not at 800-1,000' 30 times a day. That's over 10,000 approaches a year.

They woke me up before 7 this morning with 5 flights over head by 8:00, No spread there right down the AMEBY,

You mentioned in your July 13 posting you had 5 in a row over your house that evening,

My guess is if as you say you're next to Holbrook you also are under AMEBY. That would explain 5 flights in a row overhead,

Doesn't sound like a spread.

Menlo Park:

No, I am not under AMEBY. We are to the "west" of the approach path.

I suspect you may be under AMEBY and if so, early in the morning, given the typical overcast, it would be expected they would be flying the IFR approach.

Safety: There are far more aircraft flying overhead at those elevations every day than Surfair.

Surf Air operates like a gym, The 90% that don't go pay for the 10% that do.

Surf Air operates the same with hundreds or thousands of paying members but fly 4M$ dollar planes with 7 passengers. If a majority of members called at the same time for flights the numbers just wouldn't work.

Just my opinion

resident:

they've got a waiting list to become members of the service a mile long. Their business model seems to be working just fine.

It's interesting, I live in Atherton and now have less commercial flights over our home since next gen started.

I for one didn't mind the extra commercial traffic. They were occasional, large and frankly amazing to watch. Especially multi colored jumbo jets from foreign countries. Their planes were different to look at. Patterns, speeds, and schedules were varied. However as was stated Next Gen was set up to create a narrower path with more planes to lessen traffic over a larger area and concentrate more traffic on a smaller footprint. Like a freeway. That is totally unfair to the people who now have 90% of the traffic directly over their houses with a regular schedule. I would welcome back the way it was before Next Gen.
and will post my feelings on the Eshoo survey.

We suffer a similar concern about Surf Air flying the majority of their aircraft over one flight path similar to next gen. into San Carlos Airport. They are smaller aircraft Pilatus PC-12, Turboprops and make a very distinct annoying buzzing engine noise. Like the next gen commercial jet traffic Surf Air flies the same flight path, on a specific schedule, at low altitudes.

A bad noise that's also predictable, creates an atmosphere of painful predictability. It's like hearing the dentist drill right before it hits your teeth. They are allowed to vary their flight path on clear days but for the most part choose to fly one path. They wake me in the morning with their 7:00 a.m. arrivals, and I listen to them all day as I mostly work from home, Then the 5:00-8:00 p.m. rush hour comes through before capping it off with the later 10:00 flights.

Google Surf Air flight schedule and see how many flights a day into San Carlos and the times. This will only be growing,

As Jeff Potter once told me "He can fly as many flights as he wants in to San Carlos and there's nothing we can do about it"

I've lived in the same home for 15 years, My wife and I started with nothing, worked very hard everyday and still do. From the ages of 10 on I raised my family here. My kids are off living their lives and my wife and I have really enjoyed continuing to live here. At least until SA showed up. I now keep my doors and windows closed much of the day and dread the anticipation of the those noisy scheduled flights. No more peaceful get togethers with family and friends as they fly 7 days a week morning til night. I now know how the people who live under next gen feel and you have my empathy.

I am not anti aviation or a NIMBY, On the contrary, I learned to fly at Moffett Field 40 years ago and am very familiar with loud and not so loud aircraft .From Cessna 150's to C5A's As a pilot and a resident. So after over 45 years living on the mid-penInsula I never thought I'd be the one to complain about aviation noise. Since SA doesn't seem to be going away,

I hope jetman doesn't mind if I borrow one of his many well put statements above.

2. DON'T SHIFT, SHARE - Aircraft traffic and noise should not be shifted from a larger number of people, and onto to a smaller number of people. That's just not fair. Everyone should help share the burden.

If Surf Air would Share "spread" their burden I think most people could live with it.


p.s.
I shared this in the Eshoo blog also, Thought I would share it here as it applies to NEXT GEN and Surf Air
p.s.

Neighbor:

In my experience SA IS spreading out their flights. I live close to El Camino, to the "west" of the AMEBY IFR route. We get frequent over flights of their aircraft, so I know they're not always flying the AMEBY route.

In my opinion they're not that loud, their engine noise while different isn't annoying and the duration of the noise is no more than twenty seconds. To me that just isn't a terrible intrusion. Especially compared to some of the 747 flights that sometimes pass over when they're low,slow and "dirty."

Leaf blowers and trains/clanging gates are worse.

Raise the tracks. Ban leaf blowers. Too much pollution.

I always find it funny when people that purchase a home around an airport and its activities - complain about the airport and activities. I'm willing to bet the airport was there way before the complainers.