News


Surf Air adds 31 flights a week at San Carlos Airport

Local officials working on noise issues said they had no warning of expansion

Note: This story has been updated to reflect a change in the time and date of the next meeting of the Surf Air working group.

Local officials and residents who have been working with Surf Air over concerns about the noise its planes make over the Midpeninsula said they had no warning that the airline was about to significantly increase the amount of flights at the San Carlos Airport.

On Monday, April 13, Surf Air announced that it will add 31 weekly flights at the airport.

Five inbound flights will be added each weekday, and three each on Saturday and Sunday, spokeswoman Courtney Lis confirmed, for a total of 19 inbound flights each weekday and eight on each weekend day. An equal number of outbound flights depart from the airport. The airline's schedule can be found here.

Surf Air offers members unlimited flights for a monthly fee. With the expansion, it will now fly to Santa Rosa, Monterey, Sacramento and Palm Springs in addition to the previous destinations of Oakland, San Carlos, Truckee, Hawthorne, Santa Barbara, Burbank and Las Vegas.

Surf Air began flying in and out of San Carlos in June 2013, and residents began complaining about the noise soon after. Atherton has hosted two well-attended public meetings already with airline and airport officials, one in December 2013 and another in October 2014.

Mike Lempres, one of two Atherton council members who is part of a working group that meets regularly with Surf Air, said he had no idea about the added flights until he was forwarded the press release. Other Atherton officials said they also had not been told in advance.

"We wish we had received a little more information in advance," Mr. Lempres said. "We are continuing to try to work with Surf Air."

Of the expanded number of flights, Mr. Lempres said, "That's a real issue for lots of our residents. It's going to increase the noise and everything else they're experiencing."

He said working group members had also been told by Surf Air that because the airline caters to business commuters, most flights occurred at the beginning and end of the day.

However, the press release says the airlines is hoping to also cater to those flying for recreation. The announcement quotes Sudhin Shahani, executive chairman of Surf Air, as saying, "We've had proven success with business travelers in our existing network. What makes these new routes so ideal is their equal appeal to leisure travelers."

Elizabeth Lewis, the other Atherton council member on the working group, said the time of the next meeting has been changed to 11 a.m. Wednesday, April 29, in the Atherton council chambers at 94 Ashfield Road. The working group includes neighbors, San Carlos Airport officials, county supervisors, a regional liaison for airport noise, and Surf Air, she said.

Mr. Lempres said he thinks the meeting could be lively. "I suspect this will get heated," he said, adding that members of the working group may be less upset about the expansion than about the "fact that we have been meeting and talking and this wasn't brought up."

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Hard to understand why this is a surprise.

"Surf Air announced in early August (2014) that it has new funding and has ordered 15 more eight-passenger planes to add to the three it has been flying. The airline said it plans to expand its destinations and might order as many as 50 more planes in addition to the 15."

What do people think Surf Air was going to do with these planes - park them somewhere?

That said, I give Surf Air a D minus for effective communications and community relations.


6 people like this
Posted by MEMBERONE
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 12:30 pm

And so it goes...

Ineffective Atherton town council and "other town officals." ("meets regularly with Surf Air" yet "had no idea of the added flights.")

Way to represent, Lempres. Who are these other town officials ? DeGolia, Rodericks ? Name them please. How about some accountability.

While I'm on it, when was Lewis going to let the rest of us know about the next working group meeting ?

Daily flights over Lindenwood fly lower (I can wave to passengers on a clear day) and noisier. A 7X7 flew at low altitude over my house last week. QUIET QUIET QUIET. Why can't Surf Air fly at a safe altitude and more quietly.

Wait until one crashes. Everyone will then say, "Should have done something." At least you'll hear them coming.


11 people like this
Posted by ron
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Apr 14, 2015 at 12:42 pm

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? Is Surf Air getting around some kind of statute or regulation by not charging per flight and using the "all you can eat" per month billing scheme? They are not a flying club--they are a commercial enterprise. It seems to me that companies that charge for their flights should be excluded from using municipal airports. If anyone can educate me, I would be much obliged. many thanks


6 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 14, 2015 at 12:43 pm

How can this not be cosidered a commercial airline?


Like this comment
Posted by wild guess
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 1:07 pm

uhhh.... they pay rent, and fees?

Just a wag.


4 people like this
Posted by 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."


13 people like this
Posted by really?
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 14, 2015 at 1:34 pm

really? is a registered user.

This complaining is killing me. Surf Air serves the people who live in Atherton and other wealthy communities, so suffer the consequences of your own jet-set lifestyles. Let's not externalize yet another environmental problem (landfill, factories, energy production) to another poorer community. Or maybe let Surfair change their flightpath so they only fly over EPA and Belle Haven. Then we're all nice and happy.


14 people like this
Posted by MEMBERONE
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 1:41 pm

really?
Really ?
Wouldn't it be nice if Athertonians using the Surf Air service moved to the top of the list of those complaining. Money talks.

If you look at the glide path, you will see SA flies over PA, MP, Fair Oaks, RWC, etc. in addition to Atherton.

We have been pushing for SA to use Moffett and fly over water. Then no one suffers.


20 people like this
Posted by Bear Booster
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Heights
on Apr 14, 2015 at 1:54 pm

Wow, that must be tough, to live behind Lindenwood's massive brick perimeter wall and private gates and still have to hear small single engine planes fly overhead several times a day. First Menlo-Atherton decides to play some home football games at night, now airplanes flying overhead, what's next, 5K footraces through the streets early Sunday morning? I bet in Hillsborough they don't have to endure this kind of noisy intrusion. Maybe the town can invest some of its excess library funds in noise canceling headphones for the penurious residents.


11 people like this
Posted by Athletes Foot
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Apr 14, 2015 at 2:20 pm

During earlier "controversies", Atherton has been described as having too many retirees with too much time on their hands. Strikes me the description applies to this latest trivia.


14 people like this
Posted by Mike Keenly
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Apr 14, 2015 at 2:41 pm

Remember when some Atherton residents were complaining that adding road reflectors made the street look like a landing strip? Hilarious...

Web Link


15 people like this
Posted by johngslater
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 14, 2015 at 2:45 pm

It seems like every morning when I leave I hear one of these Surf Air planes flying over. They are far noisier than the 747s I always see. I wish there was a noise tax.


15 people like this
Posted by protest
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 2:55 pm

If you want to hurt this company in the pocketbook, get their list of customers and organize protest in front of the customer's homes. That will teach them a lesson.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 3:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The chances of Atherton residents actually physically protesting anything are very close to zero.

"Protest" probably drives in front of my house which he didn't do 40 years ago when our home in Lindenwold was purchased - should I go protect in front of "Protest" house?

Surf Air is here to stay - get over it.

Surf Air should clearly do a better job of:
1 - flight management to fly "clean" ( wheels and flaps up) until close to San Carlos Airport.
2 - community relations


Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2015 at 4:09 pm

Why Surf Air is expanding is this which i saw yeserday on tv. "Airline customers complain of flight delays, crowded planes and etc" so remember that when you see Surf Air fly over head.


13 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 14, 2015 at 4:30 pm

Having flown out of San Carlos for many years, I well know a lot about noise and efforts to reduce noise pollution from the airport.

Atherton might well do more than just write letters and file a lawsuit. The group founded in Redwood City years ago, was at least partially responsible to getting the preferred entry and exit routing for aircraft from San Carlos changed, so as to be less offensive. Extra height helps a lot.

The Surf Air aircraft are indeed noisy. But why should they be always allotted the "straight in" entry and exit routes, rather than have to follow routing that other private aircraft follow. Why are they being given priority in this regard.

Enough public outcry will have an effect.


11 people like this
Posted by Keith
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Apr 14, 2015 at 4:53 pm

Although I don't live in Atherton, I too am plagued with these noisy 'planes. Surf Air has a rather arrogant 'take it or leave it' attitude toward home owners. I'd like to see that change! The company can well alter its flight paths and altitude, but instead is showing contempt for those of us who live here. And, by the way, those of us complaining are not all rich home owners. We are home owners who value peace and quiet and deserve some respect.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 5:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"But why should they be always allotted the "straight in" entry and exit routes, rather than have to follow routing that other private aircraft follow."

There is no "allocation" involved - it is the pilot's choice.

By default commercial planes prefer the safety of flying a published IFR approach which guarantees ground clearance and obstacle avoidance - and which is already programmed into their flight computers. There is only one IFR approach into San Carlos and it goes right down Middlefield in Menlo Park and Atherton.


13 people like this
Posted by MEMBERONE
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 5:44 pm

I like the idea of a noise tax. Thanks johngslater.

Measure the db 24X7, tax for everything that exceeds a predetermined level (which already exists in Atherton, but is not monitored).

We are entitled to quiet enjoyment, right ?


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 14, 2015 at 5:52 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"noise tax"

Federal laws preempt any local taxing authority on aircraft noise.

It is always interesting how most postings on this Forum are totally free of any understanding of the facts and the law.


6 people like this
Posted by DB
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm

What is louder? A harley or a Pilatus PC-12? What is louder? A semi truck or a pilatus pc-12? what is louder? a lawn mower or a pilatus pc-12? You guys make me laugh.


5 people like this
Posted by Stop the Trolls
a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2015 at 7:18 pm

To your point, DB: What is louder -- a Porsche, or a Pilatus PC-12? A Mercedes, or a Pilatus PC-12? A Bentley, or a Pilatus PC-12?

Better get some cheese and crackers with that whine.


6 people like this
Posted by unbelievable
a resident of another community
on Apr 15, 2015 at 7:37 am

Sure wish you'd all start complaining about Caltrain adding more trains to it's schedule - they're the real noise makers! We live in Redwood City along the flight plan too and I can't tell which of those planes are SurfAir and which are private planes. How can you tell? Why don't you accept that you live in a metropolitan area with lots of noise, but also lots of amenities close by - that's just the trade-off with city living. It does seem elitist that Atherton people keep complaining - like they're the only ones that deserve a noise-free zone around their houses but they still want access to all the convenience of living near urban centers. We should all just accept we live in densely-populated communities where noise is just a way of life and a choice you make when you buy or rent your home...


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 15, 2015 at 8:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It does seem elitist that Atherton people keep complaining"

Please note that only SOME Atherton residents are complaining.

I have often stated my belief that I live in a vibrant, connected place and with that come certain tradeoffs. And I have repeatedly stated that I think it would be wrong for Atherton to simply push this traffic off on another, less vocal and less influential community.


5 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 15, 2015 at 11:14 am

Peter,

>Surf Air should clearly do a better job of:
>1 - flight management to fly "clean"
>2 - community relations

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 15, 2015 at 1:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Donald
a resident of another community
on Apr 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Peter, good point. Should one group of people be required to compromise their safety for the convenience and comfort of another group? This argument comes up regularly in many contexts, and my answer is always that safety comes first.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 15, 2015 at 7:01 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Sticking with the published approach and dropping gear and flaps as per normal procedure makes the flights SAFER. Less likely to miss something and land gear up or something much more unfortunate.

The PC-12 is the worlds safest single engine aircraft. The most likely cause of an accident in this aircraft is pilot error. Following standard procedures instead of those demanded by wealthy, entitled people is a good way to increase safety and avoid pilot error.


1 person likes this
Posted by hahaha
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 15, 2015 at 7:40 pm

hey you guys...a pilot will never deploy flaps or gears too late, even with a gun to their head they'd do it with enough time to react if something went wrong, so stop with all the none sense of "if they deploy too early or too late."
Also, it cracks me up when you guys bring safety of an airplane into this. What's more dangerous, the hundreds of 16-25 year olds driving buzzed on Fri/Sat night or a pilot with an ATP rating and at least thousands of hours to his name. Stop singling out airplanes because they are a different noise to the normal buzz your used to hearing everyday, the fact they fly overhead isn't dangerous and the noise they generate is nowhere near what other things produce, like garbage trucks, motorcycles, lawnmowers, emergency vehicle sirens, cars with aftermarket exhausts...need I keep going?


6 people like this
Posted by HowAeronic
a resident of another community
on Apr 15, 2015 at 8:21 pm

Old Palo Alto- The meetings with Surf Air are not good enough. SA moved to a business called Belair flight school because they outgrew the terminal space. Then they received additional funding. Whats next? Evidently more flights. Ithought any business had to get a lease approved by the county's board. When did this occur? Drive by and see for yourself. I serached for the meeting minutes. This hush-hush expansion provided a missed chance for us to discuss and address the noise problems with San Mateo Co. board before things got worse. Why did their board allow this? I know. Money. I'm surprised this conspiracy is tolerated. Clearly the Co. board is behind this and that their unprejudiced leadership is questionable. Time to expose the real plans they have....


5 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 15, 2015 at 8:52 pm

Hmmm... Surfair founder Wade Everly who had a "storybook" background as an advance man for Dick Cheney, and as an operative for the Defense Intelligence agency in Iraq, was replaced in February 2014 by former Frontier CEO Jeff Potter.

"SurfAir's Wade Eyerly Steps Down, Replaced By Frontier CEO Jeff Potter" Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 16, 2015 at 6:53 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Why did their board allow this?"

The board does not have the authority to approve or disapprove Surf Air's flight operations. Please read above postings on the airport's contractual requirement to be non-discriminatory.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

hahaha:

if you think a pilot would never deploy his gear too late take read of this: Web Link

Pilots can and do land gear up.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2015 at 4:59 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

in case you were wondering ATP rated pilots do it too: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:06 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

clarification - even ATP pilots forget to lower their gear.


8 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:39 pm

Question for all of the recreational pilots posting on this forum...

Do you really think it is in your best interest, to ally yourselves with Surfair, and/or the FAA and their plans to commercialize the smaller regional airports that primarily serve recreational fliers?

Nobody in Atherton really knew that SQL even existed until Surfair figured out a scam that allowed them to operate a commercial airline out of SQL under a GA classification. Surfair catalyzed community activism against aircraft noise, and put SQL under the microscope of public and official scrutiny.

Seems to me like, Surfair is the cat that is pooping in your sandbox?


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Nobody in Atherton really knew that SQL even existed until"

Wrong. Most Atheron residents were well aware that SQL exited.

" Surfair figured out a scam that allowed them to operate a commercial airline out of SQL under a GA classification."

Wrong. Surf Air is operating as a charter carrier under SQL's contractual obligation requiring them to provide non-discriminatory access to all operators including commercial operations of any type.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 16, 2015 at 8:01 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Jetman:

when do the black helicopters arrive?


2 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:09 pm

Memberone,

The noise tax is a good idea, but as Peter points out, a tax is currently prohibited by Federal law, so you would have to borrow a trick from government, and call it a "fee".

But why give this money to the politicians (they would only waste it anyway)? All aircraft radar flight tracks are recorded as digitized three-dimensional paths by the FAA. These digitized flights paths could be used to determine noise impacts, and access appropriate compensation. Surfair would then be required to send a monthly "noise compensation" checks directly to the effected residences.

No tax, no fee, no problem!


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This local ordinance, which will be the subject of a lawsuit, will provide a good learning lesson:

"The East Hampton Town Board voted on Thursday night to adopt three laws that it says will substantially reduce noise generated by air traffic stemming from East Hampton Airport.

The momentous act, which was applauded by the noise-affected residents of the town, comes just before the summer season begins, when air traffic is at its heaviest, and despite warnings from aviators who say they will file suit to fight the town on the issue."............

Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2015 at 2:30 pm

The people of Phoenix are now in open rebellion against the tyrannical behavior of the FAA...

Phoenix councilman Michael Nowakowski calls the FAA's Western-Pacific Regional Administrator Glen Martin a liar... Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton says FAA did not work in good faith with the city... Council members and Mayor threaten lawsuit as early as May first (see video of news conference linked below).

"City of Phoenix FAA Flight Path Update"
City of Phoenix ~ April 15, 2015 Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Jetman:

in case you haven't noticed we don't live in Arizona. Not only that the issues here are not the same.


2 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2015 at 9:36 pm

For anyone who thinks the story in Phoenix is relevant for the Bay Area, and wants to follow up on Thursday's press conference announcing a special session of the city council to discuss the new "Nextgen" flight paths over Phoenix, please see the video of the Phoenix City Council's Special Policy Session linked below:

"City of Phoenix Special Policy Session"
City of Phoenix ~ April 16, 2015 Web Link




2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2015 at 9:43 am

There was a meeting with Surf Air on 04/22/15. Can anyone provide a recap of what transpired?

Surf Air enters the Middlefield Road flight path in Mountain View / Palo Alto. We have many schools on Middlefield and adjacent streets from elementary to high school.

If you put safety first then using Middlefield should be banned given that they are flying at a very low altitude - 1,900 - 2,000.

To suggest that no one has any control over what they are doing is to say that no one has any control over what is going on in the sky. That looks like waving a red flag under the bulls nose - we should have some control over our air space.

Surf Air has options on its approach to San Carlos - like over the bay from the bottom upwards. There should be some push to make that happen.


Like this comment
Posted by Barbara Wood
Almanac staff writer
on Apr 23, 2015 at 9:53 am

Barbara Wood is a registered user.

The meeting was postponed and the rescheduled meeting was also postponed and it has not yet been rescheduled. However, when it is held, I will attend the meeting and report on it. It is not a public meeting; but I have been invited to attend.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 23, 2015 at 12:07 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

The PC12 is the safest single engine aircraft in the world. The children have a greater chance of being killed or injured in a car accident, a bike accident or crossing the street than they'll ever have been killed or injured by a PC12 "falling from the sky."

The air space is controlled by the FAA as is aircraft patterns. Take a look at the air space on a sectional map and you will see why they don't come up the bay. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2015 at 10:49 am

The Surf Air comes up the valley (101) and crosses over to enter the bay area at the bottom of the bay to avoid the San Jose traffic. They could come up in the same pattern to the vicinity of the Hayward airport then cross over the bay.
Your comment about it being the safest "in the world" has no credulity - that is just hyperbole.
And why would you compare safety for the children using cars VS an airplane?
Neither is acceptable.
We all know about the FAA - we need to talk to them as to why the periodically direct all incoming San Jose Airport traffic over Palo Alto end to end to the PAO and out over the bay to come back into the San Jose Airport.
The FAA are people with brains - not an anonymous government agency.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 24, 2015 at 11:10 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

resident 1:

it is not hyperbole to say the PC12 is the safest single engine aircraft in the world. It is documented and I have researched it. It has an excellent safety record. It is such a safe aircraft the FAA has certified it for single pilot operation. Surfair in a move to add another level of safety flies their planes with two pilots.

I made the comparison because life is all about evaluation of risk. the risk to the children in those schools is far higher from automobiles than it is from having a PC12 crash into them. That's a fact. Bottom line, the safety claim is a red herring often put out there by folks with no knowledge.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 24, 2015 at 11:13 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

resident 1:

there is also no published IFR approach using the route you have mentioned.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 24, 2015 at 11:14 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

They periodically direct SJC traffic over Palo Alto and over the bay when prevailing winds require the aircraft to land the opposite direction from what the prevailing winds typically require.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 24, 2015 at 11:41 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The Surf Air comes up the valley (101) and crosses over to enter the bay area at the bottom of the bay to avoid the San Jose traffic. They could come up in the same pattern to the vicinity of the Hayward airport then cross over the bay."

Oh yes - solve your problem by pushing it elsewhere. Why do you disregard all the people who live under the alternate route that you propose.?


Like this comment
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 24, 2015 at 3:18 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@resident 1

Web Link

Web Link

Both of those IFR Approaches that Surf Air uses are the ONLY published approaches to San Carlos (KSQL) Airport. There is NO legal approach from across the Bay (from Heyward - KHWD)

In fact, I kept my Airplanes at Heyward (including a PC-12) for years and it is a very tough airport due to it's proximity to OAK (Oakland International). KSQL is much easier, albeit with a shorter runway (KSQL 2600 feet vs. KHWD @ 5600 feet).

The IFR approach to KSQL is easy to execute and safe from obstacle collisions.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
ASMEL, ASES, IFR


3 people like this
Posted by SurfAirmustgo
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Apr 25, 2015 at 1:54 pm

I am so tired of listening to the constant... CONSTANT!!!!! Gurgle and Fart of those planes. They are overhead and flying at 3 minute intervals day and night. I wake up at 6 in the morning to airplane noise... As soon as I catch my breath another plane passes over. I used to enjoy my back yard... not anymore. I spend my hours talking myself out of resenting this intrusion... no more time to form pure thoughts about anything without an airplane interrupting. This business cares little for the individual and their right to peaceful skies.
I work an a nearby elementary school. The classroom is constantly exposed to the noise these flying planes... yes, their noise... and their jet streams which cris-cross the otherwise pristine skies.
I also work at a local school of dance which is located on Middlefield Road in Redwood City. On Wednesday night, a plane passed so low overhead, and the noise so ominous that we were actually running for cover.
I also love to skate at a local Ice Rink. On Friday, in spite of that huge building, the concrete walls and the heavy, metal ceiling, I could hear the jets. There is no more life without the selfish intrusion of Surf Aircraft.
In my opinion, they should pay us all money to tolerate their noise and pollution. Yes, even a penny per plane would make us all rich in time. Why should they reap all the profits while we suffer the consequences? I would be much happier knowing that part of their profits went to the people who are suffering the consequences of their gain.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2015 at 1:57 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" They are overhead and flying at 3 minute intervals day and night."

That would be 480 flights a day. So much for the credibility of anything else you might say.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 25, 2015 at 1:59 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

surfairmustgo:

3 minute intervals? Seriously? They don't have enough aircraft to passing over at that interval. Histrionic much? We live in an area with three international airports and multiple smaller airports. Planes are going to be flying overhead. Get used to it or move somewhere there aren't any airports.


6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2015 at 5:19 pm

It depends where you live and what places you frequent, but there are places in the PA-MP-EPA area where you could be hearing a plane every three minutes, especially in the morning or late afternoon when commercial air traffic is the heaviest.

Here are some figures from 2012:

SFO 1180 operations/day (operation is a takeoff or landing)
PAO 560 operations/day
SQL 351 operations/day

A lot of these aircraft transit the PA-MP-EPA area, and on the weekends there are a lot GA pilots joyriding over the Peninsula (see purple squiggles on the maps linked below)


One Day Flight Track Maps for Palo Alto: Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 25, 2015 at 5:59 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Jetman:

you won't be hearing a Surfair flight every three minutes. Which is what was claimed. Histrionics.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 25, 2015 at 6:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton are exposed to 10% of the airplane noise that communities nearer to SFO and SJC experience. Just look at the sound monitoring levels for SFO and SJC - there is no need to even look at Palo Alto because it is so low on the ground footprint noise level in comparison.

I look forward to the Palo Alto noise complaint posters pledging to only fly out of Sacramento.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 25, 2015 at 7:32 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

"I look forward to the Palo Alto noise complaint posters pledging to only fly out of Sacramento."

ya. that'll happen.


6 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2015 at 11:44 pm

The federal bureaucrats running the FAA tried to use Earth Day to sell the "NextGen" boondoggle on their Facebook page, and ended up getting angry comments from all over the country:

"What a farce NextGen is: Lies and deceit; Environmental "reviews" with no basis in facts; The ruination of quiet neighborhoods; Destruction of property values without any compensation. It's Federal government bullying at its worst, and they claim to be celebrating Earth Day? George Orwell could not have written such a scenario"

You can read all of the comments on the FAA's Facebook page. The FAA's original post was on April 22, 2015 and begins "Happy Earth Day!".


FAA Facebook Page: Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Apr 28, 2015 at 11:20 am

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@SurfAirmustgo

Do you just make up this stuff?

Surf air currently operates approximately 83 flights (arrivals) per week that come over Atherton. So your a plane every 3 minutes is simply bull***T. In fact there are over 116,000 air operations per year at SQL so you MIGHT be blaming Surf Air for other flights (I'm trying to give you the benefit of doubt)

So your every 3 minutes line needs to be retracted. There is a cluster of 4 flights from 7-8am then a cluster of 3 flights form 11-12am the two flights from 2:30-3:00pm then finally 4 flights from 6:30-8:00pm on mondays (their BUSIEST day!!!!) hardly the number you are describing.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
ASMEL, ASES, IFR


4 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of another community
on Apr 28, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Peter,

Do local fire departments have a emergency response plan for a SurfAir plane (or worse, a jetliner) coming down in a residential area?


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 29, 2015 at 7:52 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

yes and such plans are exercised on a county wide basis every couple of years.

However since the scope of such an event is highly unpredictable - from a small plane landing in the mud flats to a very large plane impacting a highly populated area - not every possible scenario can be planned and tested.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 29, 2015 at 12:54 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Flying has become more energy efficient than driving:
By John Kemp

(Reuters) - Flying has become less energy intensive than driving, at least in the United States, according to the surprising findings of an analysis of energy consumption by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.

Transporting one person a distance of one mile by aircraft consumed on average the energy equivalent to 2,465 British thermal units (BTUs), compared with 4,211 BTUs for moving one person one mile by car, in 2012."

Full story at:

Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Atherton Resident
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 22, 2015 at 1:16 am

Question for all of the recreational pilots posting on this forum...

Do you really think it is in your best interest, to ally yourselves with Surfair, and/or the FAA and their plans to commercialize the smaller regional airports that primarily serve recreational fliers?

Nobody in Atherton really knew that SQL even existed until Surfair figured out a scam that allowed them to operate a commercial airline out of SQL under a GA classification. Surfair catalyzed community activism against aircraft noise, and put SQL under the microscope of public and official scrutiny.

Well Said and worth repeating,

There is precedence for closing General Aviation Airports, What's needed is enough people to make a case for safety and quality of life.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 22, 2015 at 6:42 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Surfair figured out a scam that allowed them to operate a commercial airline out of SQL under a GA classification."


There is no such scam - the same aircraft that Surfair uses have flown out of SQL for years and Surfair has no special exemption pr permission.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 22, 2015 at 6:48 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

It has been reported that a sound meter was installed for 24 hours somewhere in Atherton,

Where was it located?

What was the recorded noise level of the Surfair flights?

Why has this information not been made public?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 22, 2015 at 8:37 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

"Why has this information not been made public?"

probably because it didn't show what Surfair opponents wanted it to.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 22, 2015 at 8:39 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Atherton Resident:

if most people in Atherton didn't know SQL existed I have to question how observant they are. Did they never look at a map? Did they never drive along 101 and see it right next to the freeway? SQL has been around for a very long time and its existence certainly wasn't a secret.


3 people like this
Posted by Bay Area Native
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:14 pm

Our neighborhood used to have the usual amount of peace and quiet. Now, watch out, hello, we have Surf Air jets flying over and the amount of noise is very disruptive. Can't talk out side while they are flying over! I've always liked San Carlos Ariport being there, nice neighborhood airport for resident pilots, small planes, even like the purr they made while landing--now I'm thinking since they are unable to control Surf Air noise problem wow maybe San Carlos Airport should be moved to I don't know---San Carlos, Timbuktu!


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm


There goes another noisy Surf Air, I don't need an alarm clock anymore,

They're kind enough to buzz my house all day starting at 7:00


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 26, 2015 at 7:41 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

tired:

you could just as easily time your wake up time by some other airline overflight. SA isn't the only one making noise over your house.


Like this comment
Posted by Close San carlos
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 27, 2015 at 1:27 pm


I was never bothered by San Carlos Airport. Barely knew they were there. Wasn't even bothered by small private planes, With Surf Air all flights have become more noticeable.

A lot has been said criticizing Surf Air and the noise they create flying in to San Carlos. As with a lot of things they hope to wait out the complaints and keep increasing their number of flights.

My suggestion is to either limit the number of Commercial Surf Air flights going into San Carlos Airport or close it down. San Carlos is a public Airport governed by San Mateo County representing us the tax paying citizens.

If you can't come to a compromise then close it.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 27, 2015 at 5:40 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Close:

SQL cannot be closed because they have accepted funds from the FAA which governs the running of the airport.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 27, 2015 at 5:48 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

In my opinion SurfAir is doing a much better job this week of spreading out their flights and flying "clean".

Thank you SurfAir.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50 pm



Surf Air has indicated they will order up to 50 more Pilatus planes.

How many flights in to San Carlos does that work out to.


Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:56 pm



Next Gen was not given much thought until it was implemented, It was in the planning stages for several years. Now it's probably too late for Palo Alto.

I think it's time to put some numbers to Surf Air's flights now not wait until it's too late .

50 Planes!!!!!!


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 7:07 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I had dinner last night at Stanford Shopping Center - North side, outside, facing North.

I was pleased to see 4 Surf Air flights fly directly over the Shopping Center - well to the West of the AMBEY approach. All were flying clean.

Surf Air seems to be spreading their flights out away from the single AMBEY corridor and to be flying clean.

Thanks.


3 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 29, 2015 at 8:23 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

I have been seeing the same thing as Peter. I live a block off ECR to the west of AMEBY. Surfair flights pass directly over my home regularly and I too have noticed that they are usually flying clean.


Like this comment
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 29, 2015 at 12:23 pm


And occasionally Monsanto will support charitable causes.

Let's be honest Surf Air is a for profit corporation their only obligation is to their investors.

They are well aware of the complaints and the best way to temper them on a sliding scale. I'm quite sure they have staff that read these threads.

They will revert back to more frequent Ameby approaches which is quicker, cheaper, and easier as the complaint level allows. If I were an investor that's what I would what them to do. However I'm not, I'm a person that is bothered by their flights and they detract from my quality of life.

Similar to the suffering of people living in Palo Alto by nextgen but it is my intention to stay ahead of the curve.
My sympathies to them, but for anyone else who is affected by Surf Air flights get involved now. Unless they are willing to come to the table and compromise their flights will probably increase by 10 fold at some point.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 29, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

stop:

Surfair listens to the complaints and modifies their approaches to spread things out and run quieter. But that's not good enough for you. The fact is they could have continued to fly right down the AMEBY route if they weren't trying to appease complainers like you. They are operating a legal business in a legal fashion. If you don't like it you need to take it up with the FAA. They're the only ones who ultimately have anything to say about it. Don't believe me? Ask the people of Redwood Shores that decided they wanted SQL closed years ago. Didn't work because the FAA wasn't having it.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I have watched the Surf Air flights closely and they are doing exactly what the community asked them to do - spreading their approaches out laterally and fly clean (flaps and wheels up) as long as possible.

SurfAir is not going away and their current flight patterns are a commendable response to community input.

People who do not want any airplanes flying near their homes needs to pull up stakes and move to a very different place than the Bay Area.


Like this comment
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 12:04 am



Naivety coming from 2 well educated and informed people.

Just ask the people suffering from Nextgen, They may have had a chance 3 years ago.


2 people like this
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 12:11 am

Menlo Voter,

Surfair,

"They are operating a legal business in a legal fashion. If you don't like it you need to take it up with the FAA. They're the only ones who ultimately have anything to say about it. Don't believe me? Ask the people of Redwood Shores that decided they wanted SQL closed years ago. Didn't work because the FAA Wasn't having It."

Just add the name Nextgen and your whole statement applies,

Sorry Palo Alto according to Menlo Voter you're out of luck,


3 people like this
Posted by jbcham
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Sep 1, 2015 at 12:15 am

Stop Surf Air: By Nextgen are you referring to the organization supported by Tom Steyer?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 6:56 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

It amazes me. People want safe, economical and frequent flights and when the FAA takes steps to make that happen they bitch about it.


Like this comment
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 11:13 am



I know, Thats what Nextgen is, safe economical and frequent, you left out unfair, crowded and noisy,


Surf Air, Safe, economical, and frequent, also, unfair, crowded and noisy,

What don't you get.

If I told you two years ago what nextgen would be like you would probably have said it won't be that bad.

You can't have it both ways,


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 11:36 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

stop:

I don't think it's that bad. I also don't think Surfair is that bad and they fly over my house and office with great regularity. I also get SFO traffic passing over with regularity.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. People that are complaining are the ones that want it both ways. They want safe, economical and frequent but they don't want what has to be done to make that happen. You can't run more flights into an airport without making things more crowded. They can't have it both ways.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 1, 2015 at 2:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

For anyone who thinks that managing the Bay area airspace is easy here is a good map of that airspace at ground level:

Web Link

And for more info on SQL here is an excellent report:

Web Link

Note:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) plays several roles with respect to
airport/community land use compatibility and control of noise associated with aircraft operations.
 Implement and Enforce Aircraft Operational Procedures – The FAA’s responsibilities
include ensuring pilot compliance with Air Traffic Control instructions, enforcing flight
restrictions, and monitoring careless and reckless operation of aircraft. Where and how
aircraft are operated is under the jurisdiction of the FAA and the pilot-in-command.
 Managing the Air Traffic Control and Airspace System – The FAA is responsible for
the control of navigable airspace and for reviewing all proposed alterations to airport flight
procedures proposed for noise abatement purposes. The FAA reviews proposed alterations
to flight procedures on the basis of safety of flight operations, safe and efficient use of
navigable airspace, effects on national security and defense, compliance with applicable
laws and regulations, and general management and control of national airspace and air
traffic control systems.
 Certification of Aircraft – the FAA sets noise level requirements for aircraft including
noise standards for new aircraft type certifications pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 14, Part 36 “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Air Worthiness Certification”.
 Pilot Certification/Licensing – the FAA has exclusive authority to certify pilots of aircraft
in the United States. Individuals licensed as pilots are trained under strict guidelines
focused on safety.
 Noise Compatibility Studies - In 1981, the FAA issued its Interim Rule on Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, which
became final in 1985.2 The FAR Part 150 regulations were issued in response to provisions
contained in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, which allow airport
operators, on a voluntary basis, to prepare aircraft noise exposure maps and land use
compatibility programs. FAR Part 150 “prescribes the procedures, standards and
methodology governing the development, submissions, and review of airport noise maps
and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and
approving or disapproving those programs.” FAR Part 150 is more comprehensive than
previous federal noise programs, and since its enactment, FAA grants can be applied to
implement noise programs in communities impacted by aircraft noise.

Exhibit 4.2 - Relevant 2035 noise contours do not come even close to Atherton.

Exhibit 4.5 Radar Flight tracks

Exhibit A-1 Effect of noise on people

Exhibit A-2 Sound Level Exposure Concept

Table A-5 Annual Average Day Operations - Future Conditions (2035)


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 1, 2015 at 3:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As an elected public official one of my biggest disappointment is that citizens do not pay attention to public notices and fail to participate in the process of policy development.

For example, Table A-5 above shows 18.25 PC-12 arrivals per day in 2035. The PC-12 is the aircraft the SurfAir flies.

Does anybody believe that SurfAir will only have 18.25 arrivals per day in 2035?
Has anybody commented on this draft report?
Why not?


Like this comment
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 9:55 pm

Menlo Voter,

I appreciate Surf Air and Nextgen don't bother you, apparently it does many other people. Get back to me when Surf Air gets up to 100+ flights a day over your house.


Like this comment
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 1, 2015 at 10:14 pm

Peter,

Didn't find the avg. daily, but I did find the annual, 111,500, in 2013, expected to climb to 146,697 in 2035, an additional 35,197. flights,

If that doesn't scare people under the flight path I don't know what will,


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 2, 2015 at 6:48 am

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Actually stop surf air, in the big picture they don't bother that many people. Depending on the source only 450 to 750 people are responsible for the "thousands" of complaints. That's a minuscule portion of the 100's of thousands of people that these planes fly over every day.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Sep 2, 2015 at 7:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Table 4.1 shows total annual flights.

Table A-5 Annual Average Day Operations - Future Conditions (2035) shows daily flights by aircraft type.


2 people like this
Posted by Stop Surf Air
a resident of Atherton: other
on Sep 3, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Interesting article in the Daily Post today,

The reason I keep bringing up Surf Air is a result of reading all the reactive posts from people who suffer from Next Gen.

As I have said before if residents of Palo Alto had known two years ago how bad NextGen would be they would have fought it then and a different plan would be in effect now. They were "sand bagged"

When Surf Air gets up to 50 planes, not all but many of which will be flying in to San Carlos Airport it will be similarly unbearable but as w/ Nextgen more difficult to stop/slow down/alter after the fact.

The two problems are connected and this thread applies to both. Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Stanford, Atherton, and Redwood City all will continue to be effected by traffic from Surf Air, This is our two year notice that Palo Alto didn't get.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 3, 2015 at 5:38 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

stop:

we live in an area with millions of people, three international airports and numerous smaller airports. Does anyone honestly think that as population and demand grows that air traffic won't increase? Duh. There is going to be more overflights of every kind, be it Surfair or regular commercial flights.

And again, folks want cheaper, more frequent flights. Does anyone honestly believe that's going to result in LESS air traffic? Again, duh.


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

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

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

*Required Fields

Truckee cafe to expand to Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,696 views

Attraction to a Person Outside Your Relationship
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 811 views

One more year
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 810 views