I've been based at SQL for years.
Surf Air is going to ruin the airport for everyone else.

i don't remember anyone having a problem with the san carlos airport until surf air began flying day and night. had i purchased my property in a flight path, i would have nothing i could complain about. however, i did not buy in an area where planes flew overhead constantly. the other night i would have sworn that a plane was going to come right into my house. fair is fair. no need to close the san carlos airport. no need to do anything more than to take us back to a time when so many people were not being annoyed in order to make life easier for so few people.

Blame Surf Air, but really it's just a precipitous increase in traffic similar to what we're experiencing on all the roadways. Say some tech company suddenly started running huge buses up your streets all day long. Yes, I hear complaints about that too, and questions about the legality of private companies using public thoroughfares. Are the buses preferable to all those passengers each driving their own car? Is Surf Air preferable to those 3000 customers flying their own planes? Ok, maybe apples and oranges, but still symptoms of overdevelopment and the downside of increased prosperity.

Our tax dollars at work! While we're at it, let's also study leaf blowers, trains, and those damn horse-drawn carriages.

So what if a number of self-interested Surf Air lovers showed up. Of course they did. As for another noise study--good grief how many studies do we need? Use your ears! The noise is unbearable--unless you benefit from it--and should not be tolerated by the rest of us. I did not buy a house on a flight path, nor would I have done so. I value my peace and quiet and I need a peaceful night's sleep. If Dan Dyer goes out of business, that's too bad. He should have thought through his business plan and thought of the consequences for others.

Did people with business in Los Angeles or elsewhere, for example the attorneys, find it impossible to get there before Surf Air? Of course they didn't; SF airport is readily available. But now the entire area has to suffer for the convenience of a few businesses. That is so wrong!

Are those businesses or Dan Dyer going to cover my expense of installing double, or triple, panes for my windows and MY convenience? I think they should! However, I'd much prefer those flights to stop entirely!

Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"Can anyone tell me how "for profit" airlines like SurfAir are allowed to use a municipal airport like the one in San Carlos for commercial flights?"

San Carlos is an officially designated reliever airport and a long time and continuing recipient of FAA Airport Improvement Grants which OBLIGATE them to permit airplane operations on a nondiscriminatory basis. Therefore San Carlos cannot prohibit Surf Air or anybody else from operating for-profit flights.

Here is the Grant Assurance language:
"22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport."

Peter Carpenter. Surf Air's use of San Carlos airport does not strike me as use on "reasonable terms." It's over-use and night time use and the considerable disruption to people's lives is something that is not protected by the FAA's rules. This excessive and exploitive use of San Carlos Airport may well bring an end to this airport if its existence is bound to unreasonable FAA rules and money.

I know you'll disagree and you are certainly free to continue your support for Surf Air's abusive use of our local airport, but I do wish that you would consider the horrendous impact on your neighbors and the surrounding communities.

Mark:

22 flights a day are "abuse?" Give me a break.

@Menlo Voter and Peter Carpenter [part deleted. Please comment on the topic, not on other posters. ] It is not 22 flights a day. It is 22 flights out and 22 flights in. Regardless of the number of flights, the noise created is unacceptable to many in our communities.

"Surf Air's use of San Carlos airport does not strike me as use on "reasonable terms.""

SurfAir's flights are a fraction of SQL's daily operations.

Last year, San Carlos Airport generated over 130,000 aircraft "operations" or about 350 operations per day.

Mark:

no one is complaining about out bound flights. They're complaining about inbound flights, thus 22 flights a day. Even if they were complaining about outbound, 44 flights a day? Give me a break.

" (because you both post together so frequently, including your coincidental absence during Christmas time and your coincidental reappearance immediately after the holiday, I assume you are closely tied.) "

You know what they say about assumptions.....

Menlo Voter

"Mark:

22 flights a day are "abuse?" Give me a break."

M.V. Suggest you Google "Surf Air Schedule", By August they will have 40 flights a day inbound to SQL.

Is 40 abuse, How about 80, They are ordering 50 new Pilatus aircraft. I remember going to a meeting when the head of operations for SA stood up and said their would be no more than 13-14 a day inbound.

Peter,

"Surf Air's use of San Carlos airport does not strike me as use on "reasonable terms.""

SurfAir's flights are a fraction of SQL's daily operations.

Last year, San Carlos Airport generated over 130,000 aircraft "operations" or about 350 operations per day."

Peter as of August SA will operate over 10% of daily operations and growing. More than any other operator, and growing. What number is unreasonable?

Mark - Sloopy homework and false assertions.

I posted a lot during the holidays - here is just one example:

+ 21 people like this Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 31, 2015 at 4:39 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Fair sailing, Andy. You were a gentleman who placed the good and the need's of the community before your own personal desires and ambition..

Thank you.

and they account for 30 times more complaints than any other operator,

Be careful what you argue for, We may end up closing a local job producing general aviation airport, that didn't bother anybody until SA showed up.

"What number is unreasonable?"

Actually in accordance withe the Grant Assurances the NUMBER of flights is irrelevant. The Grant Assurances reference to reasonable is with regards to the "economic terms" placed on SurfAir by the County. The County has zero authority to regulate the number of SurfAir flights.

"9.7. Availability of Leased Space.
The sponsor's federal obligation under Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, to operate the airport for the public's use and
benefit is not satisfied simply by keeping the runways open to all classes of users. The assurance federally obligates the sponsor to make available suitable areas or space on reasonable terms to those willing and qualified to offer aeronautical services to the public (e.g. air carrier, air taxi, charter, flight training, or crop dusting services) or support services (e.g. fuel, storage, tie-down, or flight line maintenance services) to aircraft operators. Sponsors are also obligated to make space available to support aeronautical
activity of noncommercial aeronautical users (i.e., hangars and
tie-down space for individual aircraft owners). This means that unless it undertakes to provide these services itself, the sponsor has a duty to
negotiate in good faith for the lease of premises available to conduct aeronautical activities."

I understand the argument considering the noise of Surf Air planes, and I am supportive of reducing the amount of Surf Air traffic. However, shutting down the entire airport operations seems silly and unreasonable. One must realize that Mr. Dyer or any other business besides Surf Air themselves is unable to control the Surf Air schedule. Removing the airport would be removing a crucial part of the county's infrastructure which has many educational, vocational, and recreational opportunities.

" We may end up closing a local job producing general aviation airport, that didn't bother anybody until SA showed up."

NO, we won't. The county cannot close it. As has been repeatedly demonstrated. SQL isn't going anywhere.

And Chicago couldn't close Meigs Field.

musical:

Chicago didn't close Miegs it's corrupt mayor at the time did. He ordered bulldozers in under the cover of darkness and had the field destroyed. I would hope our board of supervisors wouldn't be so crass or stupid. But, you never know....

"The County has zero authority to regulate the number of SurfAir flights."

Peter, per the related thread in these forums this conclusion does not appear warranted given the FAA verbiage you have kindly shared with us. It would seem that the reliever airport owner cannot discriminate against any given *type* of aircraft, use or operation but there may be latitude to curb the total number of flights, or perhaps the time flights arrive or depart, as is the case at SJC (again, see sections A and B under General in the County of San Mateo Airport Regulations document here: Web Link In any case, I would like to see definitive FAA regulations outlining control over the *number* of flights into/out of an airport, as opposed to type.

Also, as others have pointed out, 44 daily SA flights out of 350 total, or about 13%, is a considerable slice of the traffic for this airport. Were SA to increase the inbound number to 40 by August (with, for argument's sake, 40 outbound as well), the percentage would be closer to 21. Surf Air is operating within perfectly clear legal rights where SQL is concerned but as a business I would caution them to tread lightly round this airport, or redouble their public outreach efforts at the very least.

Gern

To be very clear San Carlos Airport CANNOT restrict the number of SurfAir flights UNLESS it also restricts every other user of the airport in the exact same manner.

The SJC curfew limits are tied to FAA defined classes of pure jets based on their noise levels. The FAA has no similar regulations regarding turboprops.

"I would like to see definitive FAA regulations outlining control over the *number* of flights into/out of an airport, as opposed to type."

Please research this issue and post your results.

"The County has zero authority to regulate the number of SurfAir flights."

"To be very clear San Carlos Airport CANNOT restrict the number of SurfAir flights UNLESS it also restricts every other user of the airport in the exact same manner."

Persistence is key to peeling the Peter Carpenter onion. :) Stated in the positive:

To be very clear San Carlos Airport CAN restrict the number of SurfAir flights IF AND ONLY IF it also restricts every other user of the airport in the exact same manner.

Seems a relatively straightforward matter, then, to restrict the total number of inbound/outbound flights for any single user/entity where the originating/destination airport is not SQL, to allow for continued flight training operations at the airport. I may be oversimplifying here, of course, but this doesn't appear as impossible as others would have us believe.

Again, I hope this is resolved without the need for further regulation but I'm afraid at 40 inbound flights per day it will take more than "clean" approaches and five-blade props to quell the rising ire aimed at Surf Air.

Gern

Once on the ground they are controlled by the airport, not the FAA, Where to turn, taxi, park, wait for clearance, run up areas, tie down, take off based on traffic,etc. Pilatus take off and landing foot print is large enough to effect a cessna 150's spacing for landing and takeoff spacing and timing caused by turbulence,

With 40 or 80 inbound it now has a measurable effect on airport operations. Not fair to other aircraft operations, and schedules,

They went from a promised 13-14 and are now scheduling 40 a day. Based on orders for 50 new aircraft it's safe to assume inbound numbers will increase. How much is too much.

Beside bringing negative attention to the airport from people that otherwise didn't know it was there or it didn't bother them to 175 people at a poorly announced meeting w. Supe's, it is inevitable more complaints will come.

Worse is yet to come with the good weather. I saw someone refer to the noise from the Pilatus as feeling like being dive bombed. That is the sound it makes.
I support keeping SQL open for general aviation but not for commercial airlines. And to that point based on Surf's success it would make sense others will follow. As Peter says the airport can't control number of inbound flights, so potentially hundreds a day with other airlines. It's not a difficult model to duplicate. I'm still waiting for the vocal few to say what number is too much.

Gern's proposal is clearly discriminatory against SurfAir - which is exactly why Gern made such a proposal - and is prohibited by the Grant Assurances.

"I'm still waiting for the vocal few to say what number is too much"

What number is "too much" at SFO, SJC and OAK?

Are you serious, you're comparing SFO to San Carlos Airport,

can't address the issues?

private pilot:

you're the one asking how many commercial flights is "too many." How many is "too many at SFO, SJC and OAK? Remember SQL is a designated reliever airport used to reduce traffic at those airports. So, how much needs to be reduced from those airports? ie, how many is "too many?"

How about we stay on topic, and answer the question

I did answer the question. You didn't like the answer and true to form of those opposed to SA you try to deflect. How about you answer my question?

In my interaction with SurFAir they have been professional, reasonable and cooperative.

Just imagine if the County and other elected officials tried to collaborate with SurfAir rather than continuing to try to drive them out of business or sue them.

I think most people could live with 10 a day. Works for me and probably makes this whole thing go away and we can all go back to our normal lives and the airport could get back to what they do,

Can't speak for the folks at the tip of the funnel in Fair Oaks,

I know 40-80 won't work

Peter,

when SA operations manager says no more than 13 a day, and we're up to 40, how do you expect the supervisors
to feel they are operating in good faith.

Would like to see negotiations be transparent.

Would like to hear from the 800 people that signed the petition.

Most of which do not want to close the airport, only reduce SA noise.

"Gern's proposal is clearly discriminatory against SurfAir - which is exactly why Gern made such a proposal - and is prohibited by the Grant Assurances."

A patently false statement on all counts -- please provide specific FAA language which prohibits such a proposal when it applies -- equally -- to all users of the airport. And I reiterate: I am not in favor of additional regulation at SQL but 40 or more daily inbound Surf Air flights to the airport simply will not fly.

Gern

Is a flying club a "single user/entity" ?? Anybody know what percentage of SQL flights are due to the larger clubs or training organizations on the field? Is Surf Air technically a "flying club" ?

Another contentious issue is whether there will ever be an "Uber" of the skies. So far the FAA has nixed private pilots from advertising their empty seats.

The rule which the County contractually committed to in accepting its many Airport Improvement Grants:

"22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport."

Gern's proposal - "...restrict the total number of inbound/outbound flights for any single user/entity where the originating/destination airport is not SQL, to allow for continued flight training operations at the airport."


Clearly Gern's proposal treats flights coming from other airports differently than local flights. By definition this is discriminating between two types of aeronautical activities and is therefore prohibited.

I have lived and worked along the Peninsula for over 20 years. And although I am not in the direct flight path, I can understand to some degree the frustration with noise. However, I have family back east that was able to have installed double pane windows to abate the noise from a large commercial airport, where there had been increased traffic from larger planes. There of course had to be some agreements, if you accepted the installation of windows for noise abatement, you could not complain further (or something to that degree, I forget the exact wording). In any case, besides seeing if traffic routes and altitude changes can be made, having windows installed, courtesy of FAA or other supporting agency, should certainly be on the table. (and BTW, caveat, the windows installed were a huge help and it also cut down on road and other bothersome noises)

If the problem is SA's noisy airplanes, why not just set a curfew for noisy planes? SJC has a curfew that noisier planes can only use the airport at certain times of day. SQL could have one too.

The supervisors don't have to use the same exact SJC curfew times. They could use 5AM-10AM and 4PM-9PM on weekdays only. The FAA let SJC impose a curfew that lasts 49 hours a week. This one is right at 50 hours.

You may wonder why I picked those times. If I were a public official talking with the FAA, it's because that's when most people are still at home before they leave for work and after they get back.

If you read between the lines, those are the most popular business traveler flight windows. If SA customers can't fly into and out of SQL at convenient times, SA has a big problem when competing against SFO and SJC.

SA can choose to change airports or fix the noise problems. Either way, the community gets peace and quiet.

There it is: a solution that is non-discriminatory, compliant with FAA regulations, within the power of local political bodies to implement, and solves the noise problem.

Sad to read these comments insinuating that SurfAir somehow lied to the community or led them to believe they wouldn't expand service if successful.

That is not true, and it's the fundamental problem with the argument against SurfAir. They are under no obligation to "negotiate" with the community or limit their business, whatever that means. They are operating completely within the law and have been doing so since day one.

Imagine that you were being hounded and harassed with how you operate your own business -- even though you've done nothing wrong. You wouldn't be meeting with politicians and community reps, you'd be hiring lawyers!

Please read the already posted facts - the FAA approved the SJC curfew ONLY for noisy pure jet aircraft. The FAA has never approved a curfew for turboprop airplanes.

b. The authorities and responsibilities of the parties may be summarized as follows:
(1). The federal government has the authority and responsibility to control aircraft noise by the regulation of source emissions, by flight operational procedures, and by management of the air traffic control system and navigable airspace in ways that minimize noise impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest standards of safety and efficiency. The federal government also provides financial and technical assistance to airport proprietors for noise reduction planning and abatement activities and, working with the private sector, conducts continuing research into noise abatement technology.
(2). Airport sponsors are primarily responsible for planning and implementing action designed to reduce the effect of noise on residents of the surrounding area. Such actions include optimal site location, improvements in airport design, noise abatement ground procedures, land acquisition, and restrictions on airport use that do not unjustly discriminate against any user, impede the federal interest in safety and management of the air navigation system, or unreasonably interfere with interstate or foreign commerce.
(3). State and local governments and planning agencies should provide for land use planning and development, zoning, and housing regulations that are compatible with airport operations.
(4). Air carriers are responsible for retirement, replacement or retrofit for older jets that do not meet federal noise level standards, and for scheduling and flying airplanes in a way that minimizes the impact of noise on people.
(5). Air travelers and shippers generally should bear the cost of noise reduction, consistent with established federal economic and environmental policy that the costs of complying with laws and public policies should be reflected in the price of goods and services.
(6). Residents and prospective residents in areas surrounding airports should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can be taken to minimize its effect on people. Individual and community responses to aircraft noise differ substantially and, for some individuals, a reduced level of noise may not eliminate the annoyance or irritation. Prospective residents of areas impacted by aircraft noise, thus, should be aware of the potential effect of noise on their quality of life and act accordingly.
Airport sponsors have limited proprietary authority to restrict access as a means of reducing aircraft noise impacts in order to improve compatibility with the local community. To accomplish this, airport sponsors must comply with the national program for review of airport noise and access restrictions under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). ANCA requires that certain review and approval procedures be completed before a proposed restriction that impacts Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft is implemented. The FAA regulation that implements ANCA is 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions.

@Peter

Has any locality ever requested noisy propeller planes to have a curfew? If not, that may be why. There's a first time for everything.

From the regulations you posted, it appears within the FAA's regulatory power to approve such a noise curfew. The FAA just cares about the amount of noise generated, not the source.

This is a win-win for the local residents and the non-SA SQL users. It could be a win for SA if they work harder on fixing the noise problem. If they do fix it, then the curfew can be lifted.

Rather than live up to their agreements, they continue to push the envelope, By not working with the sup's this is going to get worse, attract more attention, and perhaps bring Redwood Shores back in to it. The extra cost and time being expended by Airport management and staff is putting additional stress on what should be as much as possible a stress free enviroment. The time and stress of trying to appease people who complain dealing with Surf Air on the other side and being stuck in the middle is contrary to running a safe Airport. My suggestion is for Surf Air to come to a compromise and come up with a number all parties can live with. It won't be 40 or 80. Maybe the 12-14 they originally agreed to.

Let's talk safety. Peter you always say and rightly so state safety trumps all other conditions. 50 or 80 inbound 10,000 lb, 50' airplanes landing and taxiing around a small tarmack all day and evening including when it's dark and raining I would go so far as to say is dangerous to other planes and pilots walking to their plane. It's an accident waiting to happen. The airport was not designed for the Pilatus to be what they have created. It's a dangerous situation. Lot's of planes at San Carlos are being operated by students flying solo w/ very few hours, just learning how to taxi and fly, that's what we should be encouraging. Not having to warn them how to land behind or take off ahead of such a powerful plane at this stage of their experience level.
Their are lots of clubs at SQL training these young pilots. Do you want to take the responsibility for the added risk of that much congestion around all those students. Let's use a little common sense. A lot of these pilots are 18 years old, barely know how to drive and would like to learn and enjoy as I did at that age the pleasure of flying. There's nothing like it.

Stop quoting pages of FAA authority and think back to your first solo flight "I still have my T-Shirt" and not how a commercial company can make more money.

" Lot's of planes at San Carlos are being operated by students flying solo w/ very few hours, just learning how to taxi and fly, that's what we should be encouraging. Not having to warn them how to land behind or take off ahead of such a powerful plane at this stage of their experience level."

I learned to fly at PAO and it was a demanding experience - situational awareness, flying in controlled airspace and being in constant communications with ATC were an essential part of my learning experience. No student pilot at SQL is without an experienced FAA certified instructor who fully understands these challenges. Many pilot who were trained outside of NYC, LAX and SFO environments actually stop flying when they move to the Bay Area.

The PC-12 is NOT a turbulence generator and there are no special separation requirements for landing or taking off before or after a PC-12.

"Stop quoting pages of FAA authority "
Actually I prefer a fact based discussion and wonder why so few other posters bother with the facts.

I thought you would dismiss it.

On the contrary every student spends time as pilot in command flying solo. Hence the word SOLO

It sounds like you are trying to leave people with the impression that student pilots always have an instructor on board?.

Do you really want these kids having to taxi around all these PC-12's

It's unsafe and not fair to either pilot.

If a student pilot is not competent to operate in the Bay Area airspace then their instructor may NOT sign off on their flying solo. I know a number of Bay Area student pilots who were never able to meet that standard and therefore were never allowed to fly solo.

It is called a "Solo Endorsement".

"c. The following pre-solo requirements must be met:
(1)
Before being authorized to conduct a solo flight, a student pilot must have demonstrated satisfactory aeronautical knowledge by completion of a knowledge test (see § 61.87(b)). Before being authorized to conduct a solo flight, a student pilot must have received and logged the flight training required by sections 61.87(c) and (d) through (m), as appropriate. Satisfactory aeronautical knowledge and an acceptable performance level must have been demonstrated to an authorized instructor, per section 61.87(b).
(2)
Prior to solo flight, a student pilot is required to have his or her student pilot certificate and logbook endorsed for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown. Thereafter, the student pilot's logbook must be endorsed every 90 days to retain solo flight privileges. These endorsements must be given by an authorized flight instructor who has flown with the student (per section 61.87(p))."

Again, the citation of facts trumps opinion.

But They can fly Alone as a student pilot without an instructor on board

Not sure how confident you were flying solo as a student. Most would have a few jitters with a fleet of PC-12s taxiing around

"Not sure how confident you were flying solo as a student."

Very confident.

The average student pilot training in the complex Bay Area airspace has twice the number of hours before receiving their solo endorsement as do student pilots learning in less complex environments.

And the fleet of PC-12's "taxiing around" is being piloted by highly experienced pilots whose experience significantly reduces the risks to well trained student pilots.

You don't see a safety correlation between student pilots and a fleet of PC-12s jockying for position.

"You don't see a safety correlation between student pilots and a fleet of PC-12s jockying for position. "

No, and there is no data to support the reckless assertion that there is a safety issue when properly trained and supervised student pilots interact with other aircraft.

If you didn't feel a little excited, nervous, a few butterflies, the first time the instructor jumped out and said you're PIC, solo than I feel sorry for you. You missed it.

Being confident does not mean that I was not excited, nervous, and had a few butterflies.

You asked how confident I was - your choice of words, not mine.

Confident - "sure of oneself; having no uncertainty about one's own abilities"

I'd be more worried about a student driver jockeying for position around the semis and buses on our roadways.

Confident - "sure of oneself; having no uncertainty about one's own abilitity

"having no uncertainty" wow, what a way to live life,

Private Pilot: What "agreement" did SurfAir make that they are now living up to? Please be specific.

private pilot:

I too learned to fly at PAO and some at SQL. The Bay Area airspace has to be some of the most challenging air space to learn to fly in. By the time I was signed off to solo I was confident in my abilities. Nervous, sure, but I was well trained. I flew solo on cross country trips into a variety of busy airports without trouble. During taxi if the airport has a tower one is usually under their direction. After that a pilot only needs to use his eyes and pay attention to his surroundings.

If you think students shouldn't be flying around the PC-12's at SQL then I suppose they shouldn't be allowed to land at Monterey or Santa Barbara to name just two. Those airports handle both commercial traffic and private and have done so for a very long time. Your safety argument is specious when taken to it's logical extreme.

""having no uncertainty" wow, what a way to live life,"

Thursday I jumped off a 630 ft tower with total confidence and no uncertainty as I was using superb equipment and highly trained professionals.

The Auckland tower features the "SkyJump", a 192-metre (630 ft) jump from the observation deck, during which a jumper can reach up to 85 km/h (53 mph).


Was I a little excited - yes.

Was I nervous - yes.

Did I have a few butterflies - yes.

Was I living an exciting life - yes

Good for you Peter, Sounds exciting, Not sure it addresses the issue of too many large aircraft on too small of a tarmack competing for position. The PC-12 is 53' wide allow another 50' minimum tip to tip to pass another plane or building Get's pretty tight out there.

As for the agreement the head of operations for SA said they would fly no more than 12-14 planes per day in to SQL at a meeting in Atherton, 2 and 1/2 years ago. I was there. Now their up to 40 scheduled and will increase. More planes means more money. Nothing wrong with that. If safety is the primary concern.

Personally I've flown into SQL, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Tahoe, Half Moon Bay, Scotts Valley before they closed it down, San Jose, Burbank and all points in between including Moffett Field between P3's. in a 150.

and I'm telling you from experience 40 or more PC-12's on the small tarmack and taxi ways at SQL would be one of the most dangerous w/ flying clubs, personal craft and students. Again including Scotts Valley in that equation if anyone remembers it.

I suggest everyone interested if you haven't already go to SQL and with permission walk around, watch a PC-12 taxi in and park at the front door of the terminal, maybe even at night or in the rain. Come to your own conclusions and think of 40-80 of these aircraft working their way around other planes and buildings. If nothing else let them find a safe place to park, embark and disembark on the tarmack until this is resolved.

In my opinion the ground operations at SQL are safe and entirely manageable. And the presence of an FAA control tower for a vast majority of the times of significant ground movement further enhances that safety.

If any individual pilot feels unsafe in this environment then they should simply not operate here.

MV

Don't bother comparing Santa Barbara and Monterey which have longer by 3-4 times runways and wider taxi ways. Lots of room for error compared to SQL with much more room to manuver You can land a 757 at Santa Barbara. People aren't walking around aircraft and buildings as they are at SQL. Much tighter controls and more room. I'd say safer than configuring PC-12's in a small congested airport like SQL. The runway at SQL is 75 ft. wide and the PC-12 is 53 ft. tip to tip. Again don't take my word for it go ask for permission to walk around, I would suggest w/ a pilot based at the airport. Too dangerous alone if you're not familiar with it.

private pilot:

I'm quite familiar with SQL, having belonged to the West Valley Flying Club I flew out of both SQL and PAO.

Simple solutions are the best - if a pilot feels uncomfortable around other larger planes then don't fly into any Bay Area airport.

Peter, you surprise me. you preach,

Safety first,

Equal Access second


If it's unsafe enough to have pilots not come in, change the safety hazard.

As every pilot knows safety always comes first.

The student pilots being taught at SQL are provided with superb instruction on how to integrate with other types of planes that are using that airport AND they do so safely every day. Pilots trained at SQL are therefore well prepared to deal with the very mix of aircraft types that they were exposed to during their SQL training. But pilots who are unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with any particular airport's mix of airplane types usually elect to avoid such airports.

Which is one of the reasons that most small plane pilots would never think to land at SFO, LAX or JFK - perfectly legal to do so but filled with special challenges.

Quoting Peter,

"But pilots who are unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with any particular airport's mix of airplane types usually elect to Avoid Such Airports."

If their unfamiliar how would they know to avoid them.

Unless you're issuing NOTAM's most small craft GA pilots , which is 85% of the users at SQL, would Not know to expect heavy, constant commercial traffic at a small airport like SQL and Would not and Should not have to "Avoid Such Airports"

I can't believe you would suggest they do.

private pilot:

do they issue NOTAMS at Santa Barbara, Monterrey, or Carlsbad? No. A good, prepared pilot researches what and where he will be flying into. If they do that they will understand what kind of traffic to expect. There are plenty of resources for GA pilots if they're interested. If they're not, then they are hazardous to themselves for that reason alone.

Their is no comparison between those airports and SQL, we've been through this before.

You would push out the private pilots to allow expansion of a commercial carrier.......


Unbelievable

private pilot:

you continue to ignore the obvious. Private pilots can find out what kind of traffic is at SQL and operate accordingly. As a GA pilot I've flown into many airports that have high commercial uses. You have too. Didn't stop me and it didn't stop you. No one is pushing out GA pilots. Those of us trained here have no problem dealing with various uses at all airports. If we don't feel up to the task we don't go. A good pilot knows his limitations. No one is pushing out GA pilots for commercial operations. Your argument is specious yet again.

You know as well as I do it's not true but if you insist, we'll go with your premise every private pilot researches every small GA airport for unusual heavy commercial traffic they fly in to, then decide their is a safety risk and does not fly in. Hence the private pilot is pushed out for the sake of the commercial carrier.

How about we limit the commercial carriers operations to lessen the safety risk for everyone, not only the pilots but ground crews, pedestrians, other pilots, staff, etc.

I always favor compromise over absolute.

"How about we limit the commercial carriers operations to lessen the safety risk for everyone, not only the pilots but ground crews, pedestrians, other pilots, staff, etc."

Because, I disagree with the premise that there is a safety issue. I think it is a false and something you have latched onto as a way around the fact that the FAA can't limit flights and the county can't force SA out.

Why would you have a problem with this,

"I suggest everyone interested if you haven't already. Go to SQL and with permission walk around, watch a PC-12 taxi in and park at the front door of the terminal, maybe even at night or in the rain. Come to your own conclusions and think of 40-80 of these aircraft working their way around other people, planes and buildings. If nothing else let them find a safe place to park, embark and disembark on the tarmack until this is resolved."


To the public at large:

Educate yourself, come to your own conclusions,

Maybe there is no safety issue, but there is a noise issue, at least perceived by a significant contingent of local residents. And when that exists, it becomes a political problem that governmental bodies want to address.

The FAA can't limit SA flights and the county can't force them out. But, these governmental bodies can make business operations difficult and cost prohibitive if SA does not fix the noise problem.

The morning and late afternoon curfew times are one way. I'm sure those who know more about FAA regulations can think of other ways to encourage SA to address this problem better.

Actually Apple, it's a fairly small contingent of people making these complaints. Especially when considered against the total number of people that are potentially disturbed.

private pilot:

I have no problem with people looking at the airport for themselves. As I have said before, I am familiar with SQL having flown out of there in the past.

@Menlo Voter

60 community speakers (not just attendees) at a SMC board of supervisors meeting in the middle of a work day is a sign that a lot of people are concerned about noise. That's how many the media reported.
Web Link

And sure, some of the speakers spoke out against new mandatory regulations. But the fact that they had to show up indicates that there is great concern the county is headed toward significant action.

What's clearer is who in the community is complaining about the noise and how passionately they feel. It's people in Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and to some extent Portola Valley and Woodside. Just look at how many comments each Almanac article on airport noise generates.

And therein lies the real reason this issue has political legs. Consider what these community members represent to local, state, and federal legislators. When it's election time, the politicians go to these communities to raise money and ask for favors using the community members' personal connections. If every day, these community members are reminded what the politicians didn't get done, that help will dry up. Or worse, go to an opponent.

If the politicians were to treat SA unfairly through this process, what is the political cost? It seems very little compared to the political gain of finding a solution to the noise problem any which way.

We shall see.

The number of individuals complaining about the "SurfAir" problem is a very small percentage of the local population.

The number of individuals posting unique comments in airplane noise topics on this Forum is also quite small.

The number of FAA controllers and actual SQL pilots complaining about SQL safety issues because of PC-12 ground operations appears to be zero.

Time to move on.

Excerpts from the Almanac article about the County Supervisor meeting March 8th,

"They also asked for a look at how to reduce the noise, with several supervisors saying they support mandatory measures such as curfews and limits on the number of flights allowed for an individual carrier."

Dan Dyer, the owner of the San Carlos Flight Center, who lives in Belmont, said restrictions could put him out of business. "The state of the aviation business is fragile," he said, adding that two flight schools went under last year.

Supervisor Don Horsley. "I think the airport does provide a valuable service."
However, he said, years of working with Surf Air have not produced a solution. "Nothing has worked and we have not seen any improvements," he said.The county has a responsibility to the health and safety of its residents,

"Noise does affect people's health. It is not a few people; it is a lot of people."They also asked for a look at how to reduce the noise, with several supervisors saying they support mandatory measures such as curfews and limits on the number of flights allowed for an individual carrier.

Unless a compromise is reached this is heading towards, mandatory restrictions or fodder for those who want to close the airport, If restrictions are established they will have to be the same for everybody, sorry Mr. Dyer. Either, or, You will have Surf Air to blame, I am sorry to hear businesses are failing at the airport.

I like the airport and want to continue to fly out of SQL. We had very few complaints before SA showed up, All they had to do was work with the county,

As to it being a very few people complaining, Over 800 people have signed a petition to get rid of SA. For every signature, my estimation is there are 10 more people unhappy but won't put their name out there. That's 8,000 that vote versus the 320 people that fly in every day. Don't under estimate them, when the weather gets nicer and the flights increase so will the complaints.

A simple compromise now or studies, county money spent, energies spent, that could be used in better areas or we may end up with airport restrictions or worst case there are so many developers with so much money out there
don't underestimate their clout to close and develop that land. It's probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars in land value alone.

Please encourage Surf Air to compromise.

@Private Pilot -- "watch a PC-12 taxi in and park at the front door of the terminal..."

What terminal? The one on the north side by the beacon, with the restaurant and pilot shop? Last I looked, Surf Air parks and boards on the south side by the control tower. The current Google Map "satellite" view shows two blue-winged PC-12s parked there facing the tower. While there are already close to 300 aircraft on the field, it will probably be a long time before we see 40 to 80 Surf Air planes there simultaneously.

The gazebo by the taxi-way in front of the control tower is a great place to watch airport operations.

And we're using the term "commercial" too loosely here. The flight schools are commercial operations too. All civilian Flight Instructors are required to have the same commercial certificate that would be needed for Surf Air, though Surf Air has chosen to require an Airline Transport Pilot certificate for the left seat. First Officer hires only need the Commercial and an instrument rating (minimums according to their website).

"Please encourage Surf Air to compromise. "

Can you describe what that means or what it looks like?

... and if it includes Surf Air canceling IFR and varying their flight paths, how to do that without causing additional hair loss to air traffic controllers?

Musical
I would suggest multiple viewing points and yes they do park, embark and disembark outside the door near the restaraunt, near the store, Suggest asking for permission to view any area walking outside so as to be careful around ground traffic, You can google Surf Air's schedule for times they land and take off.

To MV
A compromise to me is 10-15 flights inbound and outbound a day. Might be different to others. Unfortunately 40 a day are scheduled. With 50 more craft being ordered that number will continue to increase. I'm not privy to what has been discussed between Supe's and SA. Would love to know, Discussions should be transparent in my opinion.

No need to cancel IFR flights, They already use both patterns and approaches depending on weather. No problem or hair loss? for pilots or ATC.

MV what's a compromise to you?

Regarding Private Pilot's suggested "compromise" for SurfAir:

* Why should SurfAir be the only ones to limit their operations? Shouldn't we also ask the flight schools and private pilots to cut back? After all, SA is less than 10% of the traffic at SQL.

* While we're at it, we should ask all our car washes to limit their operations to 50 cars a day. Even though they're operating legally, it bothers me that there's a drought and they're using so much water.

* And also, we should ask all the bikers on my street to limit themselves to 1 ride per week. Even though they're riding legally it upsets my dog when the wheels whiz by.

Kidding aside -- you see the slippery slope here, right? It's illegal and morally wrong to ask any business (that is operating completely within the law) to restrict its operations. That's not compromise, it's extortion.

... or they could restructure with each plane being owned by a separate LLC, and then you'd have just one flight a day by twenty different operators.

Thanks,

We needed a little levity on this,
At least you're original, I couldn't stand one more, train, leaf blower complaint,

Unless it was a good deal I would never purchase real estate under the flight path of Surf Air. It is loud. Very loud. For the pilots that want to keep San Carlos Airport in harmony with the community I suggest you help shut Surf Air down.

I suggest we all get together for a drink in the hotel bar where the airport used to be. I'll give it about 10 years, Condo's, Hotel, Offices, and reminisce about the good old days and have a joke or 2 about Surf Air and the old days when we used to fly out of there. My grandkids will get a kick out of it.

@Private Pilot: Thank you for being the voice of reason. It boggles to mind to understand why folks find a need to fight SA's battle, unless....? They should be aware that no one is attacking flight schools, small time charters, "the kids" or otherwise. This is about Surf Air flaunting its ability to legally agonize residents who live within their flight corridor, all the while hoping that the complains will subside.

Contrary to previous statements - there are thousands of us who refuse to shoulder the mental and monetary expense of this so-called "innovative" businesses which caters to a select few.

My family's health & safety (& my home's value) > your business. We will create, support, and enforce new laws and regulations as necessary since you choose to ignore civilized reason, common sense, and the greater good.

Perhaps you've forgotten the thousands of lower income folks who are closer to the airport and work three jobs? Or the busy middle class who work 80 hours per week to afford a mortgage and only have time to play with their kids on the weekends. How would you feel if your child's first words were drowned out by a PC-12?

We've been waiting patiently for 3 years, tirelessly sitting through meetings with SA, the county, and the board.

Our good faith in Surf Air's ability and willingness to change has expired and it's time to do what we've been forced to. Feel free to waste your time quoting FAA regulations or fighting the inevitable. Remember, words are cheap - actions speak louder.

The great majority of us residents had nothing but love for the airport and it's wonderful community until the day Surf Air started ruining our reasonable safety, peace & quiet. We still have no problem with any business, entity, or person who respects the surrounding residents. It's a mutual thing.

Steve,

You're right, was trying to add a little levity to something that's not a joke.

The real irony here is the old regulars Peter and Menlo voter used to always say when it was suggested to spread the flights laterally to share the pain they always said oh yeh and push it out on the poor people of East Palo Alto and Belle Haven, what they don't want to admit is the people getting it the worst as SA flies in more planes is the people you describe that are getting the shaft. Including the ESL people who might be afraid to file a complaint to some government agency these days but live directly under the most, lowest, noisiest, flying planes of all. It's noisy where I live, but unbearable where they are. I've been there and listened. Go over to Maple St. sometime or East of Middlefield and Woodside neighborhood. A couple of parks are over there. You feel like you're under aerial bombardment. But be prepared, Menlo Voter will tell you he has an office there and it's not that bad, and Peter will tell you tough luck with 10 pages of FAA regulations, If you really want to get involved jump in. I'm with you and apparently 800 other people. and I'm a pilot and see it from both sides. Welcome aboard.

Real Estate: Thank you for your post. I live in Portola Valley (Ladera) and the noise is terrible--day and night. I know my health is affected by a lack of sleep due to late and early Surf Air flights. I am trying to decide where I could move to avoid the noise and yet be near my work, family and friends. Surf Air flight noise covers a very large swathe of towns, cities and once peaceful areas. Even Santa Cruz is affected.

As the record shows:
1 - I am also a pilot with a long history of constructive involvement in noise abatement issues

2 - I have long been on record against moving my SurFAir "problem" to less affluent communities.

It is sad that some posters on this forum feel free to make up their version of the truth.

but you don't mind piling on more and more noisy low flying (800") over the poorest part of the approach.

South of Woodside, East Of Middlefield, Those least likely to complain,

ESL's who in the current political enviroment work the hardest for the least money but are afraid to complain to any government agency.

SA and you both know that. If Lindenwood was there SA wouldn't have a chance.

Peter, don't try to feed us that crap. Your item number 2.

2, "I have long been on record against moving my Surf Air problem to less affluent areas communities"

Suggest you go over to Redwood City at Main and Maple cross Woodside to Charter, Flynn, Carter, and streets due East, Some SA flights come in over Maple at 600'.

These are the poorest people in All of Menlo Park and Redwood City, the most effected by the noise and the least likely to complain.

And yet you have no problem to continue to add more flights onto these people.

To say otherwise would be disengenous.

The Surf Air schedule shows that all their San Carlos flights occur between
7:35 AM and 8 PM. This should not be a problem with most sleeping schedules.
Liz is likely bothered more by San Francisco jet aircraft arrivals over Portola Valley than the Surf Air flights to San Carlos.
Maybe many others are also misdirecting their noise concerns.

private pilot:

what's a reasonable compromise? I think SA has already made it and will continue to do so through the purchase of quieter aircraft. They already spread their flights and fly clean as much as they possibly can. When the five blade prop aircraft are introduced, there should be a fairly significant drop in noise.

What I don't think is reasonable is trying to stop a business that is operating legally to shut down or modify it's business plan because it bothers a small percentage of the population. As I've said, they've already made compromises, but the complainers refuse to see or accept that.

By the way, I too am a private pilot.

Everyone here speaks of 3 years of all these broken promises from SurfAir. What promises? Where do you get the idea that they have any obligation to do that?

I attended one of the early meetings with SurfAir and it was quite telling. The folks from Atherton and MP first suggested that the airline deviate and fly more approach routes to the east -- ie over the poorest neighborhoods -- which is dangerous and completely immoral. Then they complained that SurfAir was flying over schools and that they only used one pilot, which somehow posed a safety issue. This is ludicrous because the Pilatus has one of the best safety records of any place. On and on.

Faced with these kinds of delusional complaints, why would SurfAir or any legitimate business make any efforts to compromise? It will never be enough for the haters, because this isn't really about airplane noise.

Here's a good way to gauge whether only a few people are complaining or a lot about airport noise.

1) Are the local board of supervisors spending time and effort addressing the problem?
2) Are federal legislators doing the same?

The answer is yes to both questions.

Politicians are skilled in their ability to gauge local community hot button issues. When they find one, they will publicize their efforts working toward a solution. When only a few people care, they will ignore it.

When a large enough percentage of the population seeks a regulatory change to improve their quality of life, existing businesses have to adapt or they die. It happens all the time whenever a new law or regulation passes. What the citizens are telling Surf Air is that the time to adapt is short. If they don't, their business will suffer significantly. Is it fair? No, but that's democracy.


@Richard T

The unreasonable complaints all have their nexus at the noise problem. People are just reaching for straws to get to a reduction in noise any which way. It's a sign that people are emotional about the Surf Air issue. Their patience is short and their demand for political action is great.

SurFAir is continually reducing its noise footprint by flight path changes, configuration changes and adding quieter planes to its fleet.

With FAA approval they may also be able to change their vertical profile.

There is nothing that the County has done or can do to improve the situation but they are making political hay.

As usual the poorest among us get screwed.

The closer you get to the airport the more concentrated the flights are as well as lower above ground.

They can't fly clean, and they can't spread their approach.

Compound that with more flights and you have an intolerable situation for the least affluent as Peter has been so kind as to want to protect.

All types have been flying over the "narrow part of the funnel" for years and years. Are you telling me they haven't heard or been annoyed by them until SA arrived. I find that extremely hard to believe.

The majority of the housing North of Woodside Road "under the funnel" has been built in the last few years.
All of the buyers were fully aware of the airport.
And none of those residences is low income housing.

Informed people making individual choices .

Peter, MV. I prefer to speak from personal experience,

As I have said The people suffering the most are the poorest people in All of Menlo Park and Redwood City, the most effected by the noise and the least likely to complain. A lot of ESL"s that wouldn't be comfortable calling a governmental agency to make any complaints. You have said many times you are out to protect the "less affluent".

As for where the noise is worst, Hope this helps,
Google a line from the 700 block of Maple then bear right to the freeway and final to the runway. Going south from Maple go south on Stambaugh to Woodside. Stay a little east of Middlefield. Then through N. Fair Oaks, give or take a couple hundred feet east and west of that line. All older homes going back to the turn of the century, newest ones built in the 60's. They are now building multi story apts, closer to Kaiser but the approach is over all older homes. Again suggest you go over to Maple. They are around 600' agl All day long. Check the schedule, Hang out for a while and picture them buzzing your house all day and evening till 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. 40 times a day. They wouldn't last a week if they were buzzing Lindenwood at 600'.

And no MV, there weren't many noise complaints until Surf Air showed up. I've discussed it with Airport staff many times. Thats why the meetings, the supervisors getting involved, multiple Almanac postings, etc. etc. Yes it's noisier because of the Pilatus, This is like de ja vu. We've been discussing this for 3 years. Let me know after you spend some time around Maple and Stambaugh. This is the tip of the funnel. Then go to North Fair Oaks close to Woodside. No flying clean and not much room to go laterally, at a very low altitude and descending, I can't make it any simpler for you. There may even be a couple of families out there that would invite you over for a drink with their family to watch the planes fly over. See how their kids react to it.

Let me know after your field trip. I've done it several times so I can address it first hand.

Since Surf Air apparently won't compromise, The county is going to hire a big time consulting firm to explore options, If the airport ends up with restrictions or heaven forbid eventually closing. You can thank Surf Air and people like yourself for not being willing to compromise. I think most of the 800 people on the petition are in the now gentrifying Fair Oaks neighborhoods and south. And my guess is they are not the ESL people, so add those to that list of people disturbed but won't formally join a petition.

Good luck,

Let me know,

quote from meeting with San Mateo County Supervisors March 8th, re; Aircraft noise at SQL, in particular, "Surf Air"

"Lorianna Kastrop of Redwood City said she had lived in the neighborhood of Redwood Village for 30 years. Recently, she said, planes began flying "exactly over our house all day long."

She said she was "fine with the small private planes up until Surf Air and the constant barrage,"


Yes the airport was there when she bought her house, It's SA and it's Pilatus Aircraft that she can't live with. Which now is 22, It will be 40 a day this Summer.

Lot's of examples MV, I could probably give you at least 800.

"Lot's of examples MV, I could probably give you at least 800."

I'm sure you could and that's 800 out of a 100,000 people, at least, that those planes fly over that AREN'T complaining. We should all make changes for 800 people?

I'm quite familiar with North Fair Oaks and what the planes sound like there, as you have noted, I have an office there.

What you continue to ignore is that SA already IS compromising. They're spreading they're flights, they're flying clean (no, not over Fair Oaks, they can't) and they are in the process of purchasing quieter aircraft. The only compromise people like you and others will accept seems to be that SA go away. That's not going to happen. Neither is closing the airport. The FAA won't allow it and all the political posturing by politicians won't make it so.

We saw this before in 1999 or 2000. Same political posturing. Same demands for the airport to close. Same hiring of consultants. Outcome? SQL is still there and operating. And a bunch of politicians who could say they "tried" to "do something."

"planes began flying "exactly over our house all day long."

Let's see, SA operates for 12 hours during the day. They run 20 flights a day. the math tells me that a SA plane lands every .6 hours.

Richard,

I understand your points, to a point. Politicians are also quite adept at gauging emotional, hot button issues where they can score points and appear to be doing something for constituents. Yes, that's a cynical view, but in this case it's patently obvious. And very reckless for those politicians to do -- slippery slope and discriminatory.

Clearly, a few people are emotional about SurfAir. But they're not helping their cause by singling out one party when there are literally thousands of planes constantly flying overhead. Or by refusing to acknowledge that SurfAir has done everything the FAA directed them to do (varied approaches, etc.)

It's beyond childish to suggest that a legally operating business stop operating as their "compromise".

Very interesting that the majority of speakers in the public comment portion of the Supervisor's March 8 meeting were GA pilots hysterical over the proposed changes to curb airport noise. One after another suggested that ANY limits on GA aircraft operations would end up closing the airport. Nothing I see in the proposals before the County Board suggests this is true. The study WILL investigate reasonable measures to give consideration to the majority of peninsula residents--those being overflown repeatedly by exceedingly disruptive props and turbo props.

Was it surprising that no pilots report being bothered by GA noise? Was it surprising that all the amateur pilots pointed fingers at Surf Air as the ONLY bad actor? Was it surprising that Surf Air club members feel their lives would be so diminished if Surf Air were not there? Was it surprising that pilots and airport proponents discounted the negative impacts (noise and pollution) of their entitled hobby or elitist travel "needs" on groundlings? None of that surprised me. It also didn't surprise me that not very many ordinary people (unaffiliated with SQL or GA airports) could give up a day of work to express their disgust over increasing noise over their yards, schools and parks.

Pilots made all kinds of wild claims in order to protect their own freedom to fly however and whenever. But they gave no supporting data. How many airport jobs would actually be lost if nighttime curfews were enacted? So what, if a few pilots have to plan around that curfew! That is one person "inconvenienced" vs. thousands having their homes and nerves rattled by loud small aircraft. If business travelers have to use SFO or SJC for travel because Surf Air is NOT appropriate for a GA airport, will the economy collapse? Perhaps these people need to adjust their lives a bit to accommodate the common good. The degree of self-centeredness expressed by speaker after flying speaker was unbelievable; no sense of other, at all.

One effect of all the Surf Air flights over Palo Alto, noisy even at altitudes above noise abatement (1500 ft) guidelines, is that GA traffic from PAO and others crossing the path to SQL, are now flying lower over homes to "duck under" the cross traffic--even when no cross traffic is present. There are three obvious routes N/S through Palo Alto; west of El Camino over Barron Park, College Terrace, etc, over the Alma/ Bryant St corridor, and the Middlefield Rd. corridor. Also, despite what pilots would like us to believe, not ALL PC12's and noisier twin engine 6+ passenger planes are SURF AIR planes. Plenty of other GA pilots are utilizing the paths that SURF AIR has been flying. These three routes over Palo Alto, add to the enormous burden of air traffic from PAO, SFO, and SJC flights. Only a pilot could love 300 interruptions in the sky each day! I know the pain of Surf Air is greater in communities closer to SQL--I just want to note how far the pain extends.

In answer to the speakers at the meeting who suggested noise complaints were only from a few "whiners", about noise that lasts only ten seconds, I say this. First, my hearing must be much better than yours. Most GA planes can be heard for 30-90 seconds. And even a momentary interruption has consequences. What if a prankster rang your doorbell 300 times a day? It is NOT a deafening sound. After the first we rings you would stop going to the door. But could you ignore the sound? It is NOT of great duration. It IS a distraction from quiet enjoyment or work in one's own home.

I am a retired teacher. I know from experience that if the door opens in a classroom, all attention goes to that point. Likewise, when a plane buzzes a school, all attention is taken from instruction or learning and getting back on track takes many students longer than ten seconds.

Let's be clear about who the County Board of Supervisors represent. They represent everyone in the county; maybe a few hundred pilots, among the tens of thousands not affiliated in any way with the airport. They also represent the small number of residents who are aggravated enough to navigate the cumbersome noise complaint system (which takes longer to use than the plane took to fly over) to try and achieve some sensible limits on aviation at this county airport. Is it really so hard for a complaint system to remember the user's name, address, e-mail, etc. to avoid having them enter that info with every noise complaint? The time consuming complaint system is actually a deterrent to complainants--adding insult to injury. Let's hope the County study comes up with solutions to provide relief to residents on the peninsula!

The vast majority of people living in San Mateo County have other issues that are more important to them than Is aircraft noise.

This is not to deny or discount the fact that for some people aircraft noise is one of their highest priorities.

In a democracy elected officials properly focus on the issues that are most important to the majority of the citizens whom they serve.

I agree with everything groundling said and I'm a GA pilot. While most of the attention has been focused recently on the SA flights close to the airport it sounds like the problem extends much further. I remember Mayor Muellur saying at the first SA problem meeting in Atherton 2 1/2 years ago that he would do something about the SA flights over Menlo Park. Haven't heard anything since. Just curious?

What I have been trying to get across to everyone is, this dialouge didn't exist while I have lived in Menlo Park for the last 30 years until SA showed up. Not sure how some people are missing this point. The problem isn't San Carlos Airport it's the noise and frequency of Surf Air flights. Now the airport is getting attention it didn't have before and doesn't deserve.

FYI, 800 people signing a petition represents thousands of people.

Well put Groundling on the point of losing and regaining attention after a disruption. I hadn't thought of it that way but your absolutely right.

Again 30 years no problems, the first week of Surf Air major disruption,

I could care less about Surf Air , their business, wether they make a billion dollars, what they call themselves, nothing, who cares, It's just the noise folks, It's the Pilatus and the frequency, both fixable problems.

And I really resent somebody telling me what should or shouldn't bother me.

It's been claimed that there is nothing the Board of Supervisors can do about the noise. Yet, we see pilots speaking on behalf of no airport restrictions at the board meeting. If the county can't change the rules, why bother showing up to speak?

Clearly, the county can change some operating rules at the airport. Other airports, such as SJC, have taken advantage of this with a noise curfew already implemented.

It's also clear that it's hard to get new noise restrictions for an airport approved. Not impossible, just hard.

The question now is whether there is political will to follow through. On the one side you have numerous residents passionate about the issue. Are they willing to compromise? I would say yes. If the noise went away, all the complaints would go away and that would be the end.

An acceptable compromise works only if it reduces noise. If neither flying clean nor spreading out flight paths does it, then another solution has to be found. If it can't be found, the politicians will implement their own.

And when regulations change, that means businesses must follow these new regulations to be in legal compliance. If they stay in legal compliance, the business continues and residents get their peace and quiet. Solution found.

There appears to be many residents with strong feelings on the side of restrictions. And a lot of these residents live in wealthy areas, quite important from a political point of view. On the other side are SQL users, a much smaller number. You can see why board of supervisor comments are in favor of restrictions when you put that political math together, though I see some on this board have their doubts. I'll make the math clearer.

To understand why a few hundred passionate people is important in California politics, then you have to understand the effect term limits and the jungle primary system have had. Every 8-12 years, incumbents have to find a new political position due to term limits. Generally, they will have to run against other seasoned politicians similarly displaced by term limits, plus community-backed activists and rich businessmen who can dump tons of money into their campaign. Not an easy task.

In addition to the votes, politicians can tap strong supporters for contributions and volunteer time. In a local election with 5 or more candidates, a few hundred more people voting, volunteering, and contributing for a candidate can be the difference between being in the top two (and moving on to the general election) and the end of his/her political career.

And as long as the airport noise issue is the #1 concern for these few hundred people, politicians will care.

BTW as for as numbers go.

All this disruption of thousands of people's lives is caused by serving 160 people. That's how many passengers Surf Air brings into San Carlos Airport each day. 160

Let's see, How did Peter put it,

"In a democracy elected officials properly focus on the issues that are most important to the majority of the citizens whom they serve."

Well said Peter. I agree. Majority

"In a democracy elected officials properly focus on the issues that are most important to the majority of the citizens whom they serve."


Note that the majority refers to a majority of ALL the people that they serve not a majority of people who are concerned about a single issue.

Peter,

"All the people they serve" is 160 passengers a day, v thousands that have come out through meetings, postings, petitions, multiple city councils, county board of supervisors, thousands more affected and I know the majority of Airport staff would prefer they go away so they could get back to life as usual.

To the point of the county board of supervisors feeling the need to hire an outside consulting firm to go forward.

All v 160 passengers

The board of Supervisors represent a majority, That's how they go elected. They are now doing what they were elected to do, represent their constituents.

What kind of majority do you want.

A majority of San Mateo County residents would be more than 50% of the population.

The maximum number of San Mateo residents who have filed noise complaints or signed a petition to curtail SurFAir operations is far less than 5% of San Mateo residents - a far cry from any kind of majority.

No San Mateo County Supervisor has posted a comment on this Forum or proposed any action to curtail SurFAir operations.

The county "Has Hired a heavy hitter in the legal field": consultant Peter Kirsch of Denver office of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, who has a long resume of working with airports and Federal Aviation Administration.

"Peter" "No San Mateo County Supervisor has posted a comment on this Forum or "proposed any action" to curtail SurF Air operations."

"Has Hired a heavy hitter in the legal field" Sounds like "an action" to me.


It's a slippery slope to restrictions on other pilots and operators to be consistent.

The Supervisors are doing the only thing that they can do which is to hire a consultant

That is the limit of their authority in this matter.

Do not confuse motion with progress.

Lets at least be honest and call an action an action,


BTW, estimated to cost us the taxpayers $150,000, or as asked by the Supe's still room to compromise.

I don't believe this consulting firm stays in business with out any successes. I'll research it and let you know.

The consultant contract contains NO actions to curtail SurfAir operations - because any such curtailment is beyond the legal authority of the Supervisors.

Do not confuse motion for progress.

The Supervisors are doing all that they have the authority to do - study the situation.

Well, the county isn't interested in curtailing Surf Air operations per se. They are interested in curtailing the noise. FAA regulations say municipalities can regulate noisy airport operations as long as it isn't discriminatory toward any specific company. And that's what the county plans to do in cooperation with the FAA.

Menlo Voter has said that Surf Air is purchasing quieter aircraft. The company should have no problem adapting to new noise regulations then. The consultant will help get this regulation adopted more quickly as federal bureaucracy can be hard to navigate without experience dealing with the agency.

If Surf Air can speed up their aircraft purchases, it will save everyone a lot of time and trouble. They've had three years to do so voluntarily. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the supervisors are "encouraging" they move faster by pushing for some new regulations.

This seems like a resolution that everyone can live with.

If the last flight into SCO is at 9:30 pm and first lands at 7:15 how are all these people unable to sleep due to surf air? I think most people are awake during these times unless they work 3rd shift?

Threatening to shoot down a plane is criminal. That commenter should be investigated. He or She could be a terrorist threat.

Of course, that commentator is most likely a harmless, entitled blowhard that can't believe there are any planes flying of precious Atherton. Get over it!

Get a life people! Surf Air can't be nearly as noisy as over 90 trains per day, and yet those aren't even a problem. I used to live adjacent to the Oak Grove RR crossing, so you'd get lots of horn blowing for all the nearby crossings and station too ... but it was fine. Heavy freights would sometimes even cause the building to shake a little ... but everyone around there and along Mills agreed, you very quickly just get used to it and then hardly notice it anymore.

I have a sound meter and ears, and would like it if someone could post where in Atherton or North Fair Oaks the absolute worst Surf Air noise exposure is. I'd like to go sit there with all my windows rolled down and sunroof open with my sound meter to get an idea just how "unbearable" the worst possible exposure point is. I've been in downtown RWC plenty of times when SA passes over, and it's fine ... so I can't imagine why it would be any louder in Atherton or NFO where the SA planes are higher ...

You really have to wonder how it can be that 99% of people don't even know or care about SA overflights, while the other 1% (probably) less are so melodramatically obsessed over the unbearableness of it all, almost as if they have nothing better to do than to fixate on some scapegoat for their unhappiness ... meanwhile people sleep and enjoy life just fine all up and down the length of the Caltrain corridor.

I am interested in comments from Goundling. If you are still out there, you can contact me via the website calmtheskies.org, Contact.

Getting ready for the next round of buzzing by Surf Air,

7:49, 7:50, 7:58,



and round off the evening w/ the 9:06

On April 1 "tired of it", a Menlo Park / Felton Gables resident complained
about four supposedly Surf Air flight buzzing his house, with the times.
Checking flight tracks for these four flights you will see that the three Surf Air flights were nowhere near his neighborhood since they all followed
highway 101.

The one flight that he probably heard was not a Surf Air Pilatus.
It was an older Pilatus, N451DM, registered to Air Fox Hollow, LLC.
This aircraft still continues to fly low over neighborhoods. I would have
thought the operator would have understood the need to arrive at San Carlos in a way that minimizes disturbance to those on the ground.
Recent arrivals on 4/25 at 8:03 PM and today (5/1) at 2:34 are still being
flown in a way guaranteed to annoy residents.

I think Surf Air should be commended on their effort to minimize overflying
noise sensitive areas on their San Carlos arrivals.