News

Airplane noise reduction proposals under review

Federal agency plans to conclude its response to South Bay recommendations within a month, forward report to Department of Transportation

The Federal Aviation Administration is now completing its review of the more than 100 recommendations that a committee of South Bay legislators drafted last year with the goal of reducing airplane noise in their communities, according to a statement from U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier and Jimmy Panetta.

The recommendations were drafted by the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, a committee of local and county legislators that was created to address the growing volume of citizen complaints from residents throughout the region. The increase in airplane noise was prompted by NextGen, a program that was launched in 2015 and that seeks to free up airspace by routing flights along narrow corridors.

The committee's 109 recommendations include abolishing the SERFR flight path (which goes from San Francisco International Airport and over the Santa Cruz Mountains before proceeding southwest) in favor of a different route; higher altitudes (about 8,000 feet); new noise-abatement procedures; and routing flights over the ocean or the San Francisco Bay, rather than the Peninsula.

According to the statement from the three U.S. representatives, the office of FAA's Western-Pacific regional administrator has been reviewing these recommendations since early this year and has recently submitted a draft of its technical review to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. The statement notes that Huerta has confirmed that his team in Washington, D.C. is now conducting a final review and plans to submit its report to the Department of Transportation for final review and authorization.

"Administrator Huerta told us that the FAA is committed to this Initiative process and continuing to work on the response to the recommendations," according to the statement from the three congressional members.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

The statement also notes that it is not known at this time how long the Department of Transportation will take to authorize the release of the FAA's response.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Airplane noise reduction proposals under review

Federal agency plans to conclude its response to South Bay recommendations within a month, forward report to Department of Transportation

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Sun, May 21, 2017, 11:16 pm

The Federal Aviation Administration is now completing its review of the more than 100 recommendations that a committee of South Bay legislators drafted last year with the goal of reducing airplane noise in their communities, according to a statement from U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier and Jimmy Panetta.

The recommendations were drafted by the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, a committee of local and county legislators that was created to address the growing volume of citizen complaints from residents throughout the region. The increase in airplane noise was prompted by NextGen, a program that was launched in 2015 and that seeks to free up airspace by routing flights along narrow corridors.

The committee's 109 recommendations include abolishing the SERFR flight path (which goes from San Francisco International Airport and over the Santa Cruz Mountains before proceeding southwest) in favor of a different route; higher altitudes (about 8,000 feet); new noise-abatement procedures; and routing flights over the ocean or the San Francisco Bay, rather than the Peninsula.

According to the statement from the three U.S. representatives, the office of FAA's Western-Pacific regional administrator has been reviewing these recommendations since early this year and has recently submitted a draft of its technical review to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. The statement notes that Huerta has confirmed that his team in Washington, D.C. is now conducting a final review and plans to submit its report to the Department of Transportation for final review and authorization.

"Administrator Huerta told us that the FAA is committed to this Initiative process and continuing to work on the response to the recommendations," according to the statement from the three congressional members.

The statement also notes that it is not known at this time how long the Department of Transportation will take to authorize the release of the FAA's response.

Comments

Stan
Bailey Park
on May 22, 2017 at 4:04 am
Stan, Bailey Park
on May 22, 2017 at 4:04 am

Is that the committee that LEFT OUT any repredentation from Mountain View and Los Altos?


More info please?
Rex Manor
on May 22, 2017 at 12:05 pm
More info please?, Rex Manor
on May 22, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Is this the same proposal that suggested the SERFR route be moved from it's current location over Palo Alto to be directly over Mountain View?! (Palo Alto residents have pushed this.) This would be a huge burden to Mountain View and would mean a large increase in aircraft noise compared to what we have experienced in the past.

MV Voice - This article barely says anything. Can you dig deeper to help Mountain View residents better understand what this could mean for us? Many of us bought our properties in Mountain View to be away from the airplane noise and have had to suffer enough during the San Jose reverse flow days as it is! And it seems now Palo Alto would like to push their noise onto us. You won an award for Excellence in Journalism, which should suggest you are capable of better reporting on such an important issue for our community.


mike
Monta Loma
on May 22, 2017 at 1:22 pm
mike, Monta Loma
on May 22, 2017 at 1:22 pm

The aircraft pictured is the noisy one. The loud prop noise is the result of the fine pitch setting causing the tips to be supersonic. Recent visits by a p-51 mustang illustrate how the shape and speed of the prop can cause noise. Propeller blades that are broader paddles are quieter than those of the pictured aircraft. A second twin engined aircraft is also noisy, but ironically one of the daily landings is quieter than the others. The quieter plane is probably using coarse pitch.
It would be nice (but a surprise) if the airline could simply instruct its pilots to use the quieter setting over Mountain View.


Shari MV
Martens-Carmelita
on May 22, 2017 at 6:06 pm
Shari MV, Martens-Carmelita
on May 22, 2017 at 6:06 pm

There have been a lot of us working hard to make sure Mountain View is considered in this decision - even though we were left out of representation on the Committee. Yes - Palo Alto wanted the flight path moved over Los Altos and Mountain View exclusively, and away from them, but there was HUGE blow-back on that. They were exposed and hopefully their effort will fail.
If you are not reporting noisy airplanes EVERY day, please go to this link and keep it on your phone/computer/laptop etc: Web Link. You click on the link and click "report". The aircraft will be reported as noisy and we need to KEEP reporting DAILY, to show we are not "getting used to" the noise. Please spread the word to your neighbors and encourage them to join you.
Don't let this go, or your property value, peace and quiet all will suffer.


Name hidden
North Whisman

on May 22, 2017 at 8:45 pm
Name hidden, North Whisman

on May 22, 2017 at 8:45 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Name hidden
North Whisman

Registered user
on May 22, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Name hidden, North Whisman

Registered user
on May 22, 2017 at 8:48 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


brian
Cuesta Park
on May 22, 2017 at 9:10 pm
brian, Cuesta Park
on May 22, 2017 at 9:10 pm

the airport was here long before most everyone moved here. if the noise bothers you you shouldn't have moved here.


Shari MV
Martens-Carmelita
on May 22, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Shari MV, Martens-Carmelita
on May 22, 2017 at 10:33 pm

Brian, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to decide mine. Perhaps researching the facts before commenting, would serve you better?

The jet noise has increased tremendously since NextGen was originated by the FAA. NextGen itself is not the cause for the noise impact, but instead it is unintended consequences of changes in navigation routes and waypoints, and we're merely asking for these routes to be reverted where possible, to undo those unintended consequences.

Most of us consider carefully before buying a home, as it is a huge financial commitment. If you bought over 2 1/2 years ago, the skies were much quieter in this area. Now that jet corridors have shifted so severely, the jet traffic and noise is greatly intensified. You're wrong to assume we all bought under these noisy skies - the majority did not. If the noise doesn't bother you, fine - that is not my concern. My concern is the noise pollution and degradation of property values that are the consequence of this recent jet path change.

Luckily, our Representatives are working to encourage reverting the jet paths to the original locations and waypoints - where they were for thirty years. The FAA is responsive to this and is moving forward, though slowly.

So your glib "If you don't like it, move." shows a great lack of history and awareness. However - your opinion is yours.... it just certainly is not mine.


Really?
Monta Loma
on May 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Really?, Monta Loma
on May 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm

@Brian, agreed, the airport has been here a long time. But the NOISE was not here until the "NextGen" change two years ago. There is a HUGE difference in the number of flights going directly over our neighborhoods, they are much lower elevations and therefore they are MUCH louder.


John
Monta Loma
on May 23, 2017 at 1:09 am
John, Monta Loma
on May 23, 2017 at 1:09 am

Use stop.jetnoise.net and report the passenger jets. We get the planes from the south and turning from the north at between 4000 and 5000ft. It's crazy to have an SFO landing zone directly over a densely populated area 25 miles away from the runways! And not even directly in line. The jets turn over our homes! But nothing will get done unless more people speak out. Otherwise the government will continue to ignore its citizens.


NextGenStinks
Cuernavaca
on May 23, 2017 at 2:30 am
NextGenStinks, Cuernavaca
on May 23, 2017 at 2:30 am

What is this crazy route planes are taking to SFO? On a recent flight from Boston, I looked out the window, saw the Bay Bridge, and thought cool, we're close to SFO and will be on the ground in 15 minutes. Boy was I wrong. The plane kept flying and flying and flying until I looked out the window and saw Stanford, then a few minutes later Moffett. A full 40 minutes later, after having a full aerial tour of the South Bay, we were back at SFO.


Stan
Bailey Park
on May 24, 2017 at 9:30 am
Stan, Bailey Park
on May 24, 2017 at 9:30 am

It does appear from the linked report (109 recommendations) that the proposals are from the committee that EXCLUDED MOUNTAIN VIEW and LOS ALTOS. What are "leaders" in Mountain View and Los Altos doing to defend against more and noisier over-flights? NOTHING is reported in the story.


Resident
Jackson Park
on May 24, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 24, 2017 at 8:21 pm

When I returned home tonight around 6pm, a small plane was flying way too low for my comfort over our residential area. At 8:08pm, this occurred again. Why are pilots allowed to fly low over the area? I doubt that I am the only one concerned about this. I'm a native of mountain view and grew up with planes flying overhead into Moffet Field, but tonight was unusual and ridiculously risky.


Jetman
another community
on May 24, 2017 at 8:40 pm
Jetman, another community
on May 24, 2017 at 8:40 pm

The idea that Palo Alto used its influence on the Select Committee to force the FAA into shifting aircraft onto Mountain View is just silly.

The FAA is a very intransigent federal agency that only responds to the airline industry and occasionally to congress when their enormous budget is up for renewal. Palo Alto's residents with some help from the Palo Alto City Council have been trying to get the FAA to do something about the "nextgen" created aircraft noise in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Eastern Menlo Park for over three years now, and so far the FAA has done NOTHING.

If aircraft noise is getting worse in Mountain View it is probably just because increased traffic into SFO is forcing SFO ATC to use an even wider area to manage the congestion and sequence aircraft into the airport.

Palo Alto didn't even have a representative on the Committee. The Select Committee was actually dominated by provincially minded representatives from Santa Cruz County who aggressively maneuvered to reduce noise in Santa Cruz county with little concern for the impact on the Peninsula.

Member of the Select Committee:

Supervisor Joe Simitian
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Councilmember Ann Wengert
Town of Portola Valley

Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald
City of Saratoga

Vice Mayor Gary Waldeck
Town of Los Altos Hills

Supervisor Bruce McPherson
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Supervisor John Leopold
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors

Councilmember Don Lane
City of Santa Cruz

Mayor Ed Bottorff
City of Capitola

Supervisor Dave Pine
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

Mayor Mark Addiego
City of South San Francisco

Councilmember Sam Hindi
City of Foster City

Vice Mayor Larry Moody
City of East Palo Alto

Palo Alto was represented on the committee by Larry Moody, Vice Mayor of East Palo Alto. I think Mountain View was represented by Gary Waldeck Vice Mayor of Los Altos Hills. Waldeck had prior aviation experience and was one of the most knowledgeable members on the committee.


Trombone
another community
on May 25, 2017 at 2:40 pm
Trombone, another community
on May 25, 2017 at 2:40 pm

Jetman,

"...so far the FAA has done NOTHING.......If aircraft noise is getting worse in Mountain View it is probably just because increased traffic into SFO is forcing SFO ATC to use an even wider area to manage the congestion and sequence aircraft into the airport."

Jetman is correct

One example is traffic from the North (SFO bound European airliners on the BDEGA route) which do a U-turn over Palo Alto but during peak traffic times many are made to turn farther South - effect known as the "trombone" which hits cities south of Palo Alto. At low altitudes these jets are also using power and making adjustments which are noisy.

All cities South of the San Mateo border are collateral damage once the jets go below 8000 feet to prepare to land at SFO. Altitudes for BDEGA are maintained at 8000 or above in San Mateo (SFO's landlord), and go low, low, and lower in Santa Clara.





Resident
Jackson Park
on May 25, 2017 at 7:05 pm
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 25, 2017 at 7:05 pm

The air traffic tonight over our neighborhood has picked up tonight and is terrible. We are getting both small planes and commercial jets overhead. Since I came home from work, the small planes have been flying overhead every 10-15 minutes (they are even louder and annoying than the larger commercial planes).

So, I don't know if it will do anything, but I sent an email to Anna Eshoo from her website.


Resident
Jackson Park
on May 25, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 25, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Adding to my comment above.
Also, I just sent an email to Joe Simitian. I encourage others to write if you feel that this issue is getting out of hand.


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on May 25, 2017 at 10:54 pm
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on May 25, 2017 at 10:54 pm

Resident: "Why are pilots allowed to fly low over the area?"

Lots of unusual flights these past six days -- from the regular World-War-2 aircraft exhibition that comes to Moffett Field periodically, around this time of year. May 19-27 this year. You did not mention this special event, so I wonder if you were unaware of it? Topic of many local advertisements (including here in the Voice), articles, Web Link and social media.

"Since I came home from work, the small planes have been flying overhead every 10-15 minutes (they are even louder and annoying than the larger commercial planes)."

There's been a temporary air show, properly approved, and with plenty of public notice. It isn't permanent. Even randomly asking around would have gotten you information about it (and if you are a local native as mentioned above, then you likely experienced it many times before). There's no need to be alerting elected representatives (nor the FBI, United Nations, or International Red Cross™). It will be gone after two more days.


Resident
Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 12:44 am
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 12:44 am

Common Sense
Temporary or not there is no reason for any plane to be flying so low over residential areas. The temporary air show has only added to the increase of air traffic over my neighborhood.
We all have every right to notify the appropriate people to alert them to things that we feel are not right or need to be changed. What I witnessed this piolet doing was very risky and I have every right to point it out to the appropriate authority.


Ear plugs
Shoreline West
on May 26, 2017 at 9:44 am
Ear plugs, Shoreline West
on May 26, 2017 at 9:44 am

The amount of planes flying over has definitely ramped up in the last few days. We're not talking about the historic planes here for the show. These are private jets and commercial planes.
Did anyone get notification that this will be the new flight pattern?
I feel like we're living at the airport!


Commercial hell
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 10:33 am
Commercial hell, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 10:33 am

Agreed, this is most definitely not air show traffic, these are constant, low, LOUD commercial flights. Crazy patterns too. when is this going to stop


HopeItChangesBack
Cuesta Park
on May 26, 2017 at 10:38 am
HopeItChangesBack, Cuesta Park
on May 26, 2017 at 10:38 am

It's a constant highway of planes. :( Not just worried about the sound, even more worried about the pollution filtering down onto us.


Ear plugs
Shoreline West
on May 26, 2017 at 10:51 am
Ear plugs, Shoreline West
on May 26, 2017 at 10:51 am

This is what happens when your town doesn't send a representative to meeting when other town are deciding that they don't want the noise pollution in their towns. Los Altos, Atherton, Palo Alto- I'm looking at you!

I've already sent a letter to Anna Eshoo but who knows what it will take to get this undone. If the flight pattern has changed just because of the air show- that's fine. But if this is the new normal-it's not acceptable.


Commercial hell
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 11:47 am
Commercial hell, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 11:47 am

This is ridiculous. They have been coming in the last hour, some times every 5 minutes, at under 3,000ft !!!!!!! I can't even sit in my backyard and talk on the phone.


NextGenStinks
Cuernavaca
on May 26, 2017 at 12:17 pm
NextGenStinks, Cuernavaca
on May 26, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Hope everyone is reporting these flights on STOP.JETNOISE.NET. Today looks like an off the chart day, constant commercial jet noise since 6:45am. In the last 10 minutes alone, there have been 7 incomings flights to SJC.


Commercial hell
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 1:05 pm
Commercial hell, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 1:05 pm

definitely report on stop.jetnoise.net but realize this......it's only reported/tracked for flights to SFO, it does not pertain to SJC. I wonder if there's a way to get in touch with the creator of that tool to see if one can be created for SJC as well?


Resident
Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 2:03 pm

I received a response from Anna Eshoo's office to my email sent last night regarding the increase in air traffic.

I have cut and pasted her response below which has a number we can call and also a site where we can log our complaints:

Thank you for contacting me about aircraft noise over our Congressional District. I appreciate the time you took to write to me and I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.

We are still awaiting the response from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the Select Committee Report which was submitted in December. As you may know, I joined with Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-14) and former Congressman Sam Farr (CA-20) to form a Select Committee on South Bay arrivals comprised of 12 local elected officials. Over the course of six months, the committee held nearly two dozen meetings to review FAA proposals, receive community input, and develop recommendations for regional solutions to this problem. In November of last year, the committee approved its final report which includes short term and long term recommendations to address aircraft noise in our region. We expected the FAA’s response already, but it has been delayed due to the ongoing transition under the new Administration.

It’s important to note that the conclusion of the committee’s work does not mean that this issue is resolved or that our work is complete. I will push the FAA to implement short-term measures as soon as possible and to engage with the community on an ongoing basis to implement long term solutions which are critical to addressing this issue on a region-wide basis.

Constituents can report any excessive aircraft noise complaints to the SFO and SJC Noise Abatement Offices. This ensures that your report is part of the official record. You can reach the SFO Noise Abatement Office at (650) 821-4736 or via email at [email protected] You can file a complaint with the SJC Noise Abatement Office at Web Link.

Thank you again for writing to me, and if you have any other questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas.


Resident
Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Resident, Jackson Park
on May 26, 2017 at 2:12 pm

The link for the noise abatement complaint was not correct. I am trying to resend the address: www.flysanjose.com/noise_complaint


NextGenStinks
Cuernavaca
on May 26, 2017 at 4:58 pm
NextGenStinks, Cuernavaca
on May 26, 2017 at 4:58 pm

We are getting noise from SFO and SJC flights, plus Surf Air to San Carlos and the private jets out of Moffet!!! Are we now supposed to figure out whether the airplane overhead is going to SJC or SFO BEFORE we report?! That is even a greater burden to put on us! The app should send the data to BOTH offices. I think they should see all the flight reports to all airports so they are aware of the collective volume of noisy flights being channelled over our communities.


Diablo
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Diablo, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 5:05 pm

Hey Jetman,

regarding your comment "Palo Alto didn't even have a representative on the Committee."

yes, they do! Joe Simitian is a former councilman and current resident of Palo Alto, and is representing them by default, imo, even with the blatant conflict-of-interest. Is he representing the best solution for Santa Clara County, or his home town, Palo Alto?

Want to hear about another potential conflict-of-interest - Dan Rich, who is involved in Mountain View's response to flight paths (from what I was told) is also a resident of Palo Alto. So where are his priorities (and peace of mind), PA or MV?


Diablo
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Diablo, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 5:06 pm

ps. I reported four low-flying jets over my house, 9ish this morning.


Shari MV
Martens-Carmelita
on May 26, 2017 at 5:45 pm
Shari MV, Martens-Carmelita
on May 26, 2017 at 5:45 pm

Mountain View residents are demanding the jet patch return to the original path (where it was for over thirty years). Anna Eshoo is fighting hard for us, and Joe Simitian should be as well. However, Joe lives under the original jet path therefore I have serious doubts he is truly our best advocate for asking the jets to go back to this original jet path. I think he has a tremendous conflict of interest and am astounded that he is on this committee.

PLEASE click here to email Anna: Web Link with your concerns over the outrageous increase in jet traffic - with the accompanying noise and pollution. Demand the jet path be returned to it's original location and send this weblink to everyone you know in Mountain View, asking them to report as well. It is VITAL that we show strength here, or we will continue to bear the brunt of this ridiculous noise and CONSTANT traffic.

The people who bought under the original flight path, knew they were getting the jet path as part of the sale. If you bought here, you paid a premium for the infrequent jet noise and pollution, and it is tremendously unfair to switch the jet path over us without notice or opportunity to object. Don't worry so much about whether the planes are going into SFO or SJC - BOTH paths go directly over us in Mountain View.

The most important report is the first you make of the day. That way you are sure to be counted. It is very wise to continue to report (on your computer, laptop or phone), but the numbers each day are not as vital as the count of the NUMBERS of INDIVIDUALS who are reporting. Don't miss a day - and get every friend you have to do the same. We HAVE to keep fighting and prove to the rest of the Peninsula that we aren't going to remain the new dumping ground.


Jetman
another community
on May 26, 2017 at 7:07 pm
Jetman, another community
on May 26, 2017 at 7:07 pm

The FAA's "nextgen" airspace redesign isn't just something happening in Mountain View. It is a nation-wide plan and it is causing problems all over the country.

"FAA's new flight paths spark noise complaints"
CBS this Morning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link


John
Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 7:27 pm
John, Monta Loma
on May 26, 2017 at 7:27 pm

The ones going to SJC are at approx 2500 ft. It's quite a show with passenger liners to the left, right and directly overhead!
Can even recognize the different airlines.
Why more people aren't stepping up is beyond me.
Don't expect much from the politicians unless there is an overwhelming outcry.


Trombone
another community
on May 26, 2017 at 8:33 pm
Trombone, another community
on May 26, 2017 at 8:33 pm


Remember that there are separate routes for SFO southerly, northerly and westerly arrivals. The "original path" switch-back thaf Anna Eshoo is fighting so hard for is only for SFO southerly arrivals.

Moving the southerly ground track to an "original path" does not solve the problem of planes having to go "off trail" which Air Traffic Control needs to do - vector planes for safety reason during peak traffic (all the time?). FAA said they were getting 25% -50% on trail.

Imagine that - a 25%- 50% "on trail" hit rate causes all this noise. This means that most jets are still flying pretty much "all over the map."

Just saying, this is a *hot mess* and fighting for an "original path" for 25%-50% of southerly traffic is not a solution - it will just move the problem around but nobody can get a guarantee that they will be free of "off trail" jets.

San Jose is lower because they have to "duck" under SFO jets.


MV not reprresented
North Bayshore
on May 26, 2017 at 9:08 pm
MV not reprresented, North Bayshore
on May 26, 2017 at 9:08 pm

Mountain View was not represented on that committee at all. Get ready to get THE SHAFT.


SukwinderDixit
Registered user
Rex Manor
on May 26, 2017 at 10:32 pm
SukwinderDixit, Rex Manor
Registered user
on May 26, 2017 at 10:32 pm
John
Monta Loma
on May 27, 2017 at 9:12 pm
John, Monta Loma
on May 27, 2017 at 9:12 pm

More people have to register and complain or we won't be listened too. May have to sue.
Yesterday at stop.jetnoise.net there were 8468 reports by 739 users. SFO says not enough are complaining for them to care about.

A sample of the flights over Monta Loma today:

May 27, 20:51:24 AM 664 (MEX:SFO B738 216k, 5951ft)

May 27, 20:36:34 UA 724 (HNL:SFO B772 191k, 5797ft)

May 27, 20:22:35 VX 755 (SEA:SFO A319 194k, 5128ft)

May 27, 19:39:38 BR 28 (TPE:SFO TAIPEI, TAIWAN B77W 263k, 4107ft)

May 27, 19:22:51 WN4541 (SNA:SFO SANTA ANA, CA B737 219k, 5825ft)

May 27, 19:14:49 AA 723 (PHL:SFO A321 264k, 3931ft)

May 27, 16:21:16 UA5794 (SNA:SFO CRJ7 239k, 5817ft)

May 27, 16:20:04 VX 959 (SAN:SFO A320 204k, 5395ft)

May 27, 16:05:15 AC 566 (YVR:SFO VANCOUVER, CANADA A320 252k, 5225ft)

May 27, 15:59:36 CX 892 (HKG:SFO HONG KONG B77W 251k, 5636ft)

May 27, 15:57:36 UA 718 (MEX:SFO B738 203k, 6269

The roar of jets is all day long every day.


bemused
another community
on May 27, 2017 at 10:42 pm
bemused, another community
on May 27, 2017 at 10:42 pm

Here's what went over EPA in just one hour today, on average one SFO jet every five minutes:

11:03:08 KLM281; B77W; PHBVP; AMS-SFO; 4,000 ft
11:06:43 UAL497; B77W; N2333U; EWR-SFO; 4,900 ft
11:14:27 UAL1832; B739; N78438; ORD-SFO; 3,900 ft
11:31:49 CSN659; B77W; B2009; WUH-SFO; 3, 900 ft
11:35:39 SWA5151; B737; N251WN: BUR-SFO; 5,000 ft
11:38:52 CPZ3228; E170; N623CZ; LAX-SFO; 4,400 ft
11:43:46 SWA5773; B737; N7839A; SNA-SFO; 4,700 ft
11:46:17 VRD1935; A320; N631VA; LAX-SFO; 3,900 ft
11:49:56 AMX668; B738; N861AM; MEX-SFO; 4,200 ft
11:53:08 SKW5246; CRJ2; N954SW; SBA-SFO; 4,500 ft
11:55:35 AFR084; A388; FHPJC; CDG-SFO; 4,300 ft

When I bought my house in 2005 in East Palo Alto, no SFO traffic was routinely going above it. I would not have bought in this neighborhood if it was. FAA should be required to compensate those of us whose home values and lives have deteriorated significantly due to their illegal (not supported by valid noise studies) moving of air traffic above our neighborhoods. The flight paths should be shifted back north, not just dumped onto neighborhoods even further south. What a mess. Why hasn't anyone lost their job over this?


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on May 28, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on May 28, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Unusual aircraft noise has affected my neighborhood this past week -- indisputably from the WW2 'plane flights out of Moffett. Those commenters who deny, offhand, that these special flights affect their current perceptions ("Resident" only even acknowledged the air show's existence, and defensively, after I pointed it out) seem unaware of how such behavior affects their own credibility. The week of a vintage aircraft exhibition is NOT the time to announce you've noticed a new airplane-noise trend!

Similarly for some other comments:

"Temporary or not there is no reason for any plane to be flying so low over residential areas." Um, the vintage aircraft take off and land at Moffett Field (ground level), adjacent to residential Mountain View. They fly low, to and from flying higher. (One-over-R-squared acoustics, anyone?)

"This is what happens when your town doesn't send a representative to meeting when other town are deciding that they don't want the noise pollution in their towns" Um, that distracting (and largely straw-man) notion was discredited earlier in the thread (see Jetman's May-24 comment). The real problem is region-wide, not one-town-vs.-another. (Second-guessing other "conflicts of interest" in an effort to rationalize the basic misconception doesn't alter its nature.)

"When I bought my house in 2005 in East Palo Alto, no SFO traffic was routinely going above it. I would not have bought in this neighborhood if it was. FAA should be required to compensate those of us whose home values and lives have deteriorated significantly due to ... moving of air traffic above our neighborhoods." Some very basic misconceptions on display here. Above 500 feet is federal airspace, "owned" by FAA, which has never promised to leave aircraft routing unchanged. That was true, and public (and evident to any diligent home buyer who checked), since long before 2005. I agree that it can be a nuisance to us ground dwellers, and a reason to lobby the FAA, but that isn't the same as conveying grounds for expectation of, or rights to, a stable aircraft noise environment.


bemused
another community
on May 28, 2017 at 10:00 pm
bemused, another community
on May 28, 2017 at 10:00 pm

@Common sense, what's on display here is not, as you put it, 'basic misconceptions'. What's on display here is fundamental differences between what you and I consider to fall within the realm of fair and ethical public policy.


bemused
another community
on May 28, 2017 at 10:31 pm
bemused, another community
on May 28, 2017 at 10:31 pm

@common sense, "A 2012 Congressional FAA authorization bill fast-tracked the roll out of NextGen by exempting it from normal environmental impact reviews and public hearings." (Web Link & many other references if you don't like that one). In 2005, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that any changes to SFO flight paths would have to pass environmental (that includes noise) reviews.


John
Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 7:20 am
John, Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 7:20 am

Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Orange County, among others, have sued the FAA over NextGen, calling the project's environmental review inadequate. Those cases are pending in federal court.


MV Resident
Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 5:56 pm
MV Resident, Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Brain is spot on. The airports were all here well before most homes. before moving to Moutain View over 12 years ago I lived off of Mathilda in Sunnyvale & used to love it when F-18s from NAS Lemore would come to practice missed approaches. While the NIMBY's may complain, others don't view overhead airplanes as noise at all!


USA
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2017 at 10:13 pm
USA, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on May 29, 2017 at 10:13 pm

I have been in Mountain View for 35 years. With the loss of Moffet Field traffic, it is quieter now than 20 years ago despite the pickup in commercial and private aviation.

If aircraft noise is a big problem for you, consider yourself lucky. The rest of us have actual problems to deal with in our families, jobs, housing, and neighborhoods.


John
Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 11:10 pm
John, Monta Loma
on May 29, 2017 at 11:10 pm

Well there you have it. Who knew it was a NIMBY problem! Not passenger jets flying at 4000 ft all day long! And how lucky we are to have a runway approach created that goes directly over our homes. Through the noise we can speak louder when dealing with family, jobs, housing and neighborhoods!
And it's much quieter too, spend some time in Monta Loma, Los Altos, Pablo Alto etc and see how much quieter it is, but the above commenters must be hard of hearing or just being obtuse.
And the 300k plus complaints should stop because others don't mind the noise at all.
This is why the government can do anything it wants.


Jessica
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2017 at 11:09 am
Jessica, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2017 at 11:09 am

There has been increasing aircraft noise over my community in the rengstorff near google campus. Not sure whether this is related to this proposal but I am highly recommended the City look into it!!!


John
Monta Loma
on Aug 14, 2017 at 7:12 pm
John, Monta Loma
on Aug 14, 2017 at 7:12 pm

August 14 2017 and nothing is happening. Noisy jets all day long.Thousands of complaints. Nothing


NoisySundayAM
Cuernavaca
on Aug 20, 2017 at 9:06 am
NoisySundayAM, Cuernavaca
on Aug 20, 2017 at 9:06 am

Getting bad again, even worse. Sunday, August 20th, has been NON STOO jet noise this morning since 7 am. Jets goung to SJC and SFO. Loud speed brakes used on many flights.


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Aug 20, 2017 at 11:03 am
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Aug 20, 2017 at 11:03 am

Yep, like RIGHT NOW. SO LOUD. Ugh!


Palo Alto res
another community
on Aug 31, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Palo Alto res, another community
on Aug 31, 2017 at 12:51 pm

It is not quieter in Palo Alto. The path was moved right above our house. It is so loud I almost can't tell the difference between the air noise and the traffic noise from all the new development on the ground in PA AND Mtn Vw. When we moved here ten years ago, I regularly destressed by observing how quiet it was. Now sometimes it feels like we moved next to an airport and freeway.


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

Post a comment

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