News

FAA, elected officials hear complaints of aircraft noise

 

The Federal Aviation Administration got an earful in Redwood City on June 15, having completed a study of noise complaints from residents of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties regarding aircraft headed to San Francisco International Airport.

About 100 residents from these three counties showed up at a Sequoia High School auditorium, many articulating their grievances. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last.

The gathering was the second of three meetings of the Select Committee On South Bay Arrivals, a group of elected officials, four from each county, and chaired by Santa Clara County Supervisor and former state legislator Joe Simitian. The first meeting was held in May in Santa Cruz and the third is scheduled for Mountain View in July.

The committee, commissioned by local congressional representatives, meets to listen to resident complaints in light of a recent FAA feasibility study on proposed remedies, and to make recommendations.

Complaints at the forum from Midpeninsula residents included allegations that the FAA did not adequately consider having aircraft approach SFO by coming up the Bay, that the agency dealt in half-truths in reporting altitudes over a Woodside navigation beacon, that it cares more about operational efficiency than noise abatement, and that it has not been open, transparent or neighborly in moving air traffic to new flight paths.

Glen Martin, the FAA's regional administrator, kicked off the forum, saying that the public has asked the agency if it can do better. The feasibility study "a very important step along the way" for getting local input on noise impacts while modernizing a system that annually transports 750 million people includes a detailed look at public complaints and suggestions and their impact on aircraft, safety and traffic at Bay Area airports, he said.

A key FAA objective: increasing the number of aircraft that, under satellite control and with engines at idle, glide into airports – like sliding down a bannister, Mr. Martin said.

Gliding to a landing remains something of an ideal. In complicated air traffic situations, air traffic controllers take over to direct arriving flights. This "vectoring" process has planes descend from altitude to altitude –> like walking down steps, Mr. Martin said.

Vectoring is annoying to many residents in that pilots use noisy air brakes and rev their engines to maintain momentum in the denser air. "Vector traffic is much slower and much louder" when crossing over navigation points in the Woodside hills and above Menlo Park, said Dr. Tina Nguyen, a Portola Valley resident who spoke at the forum for Californians for Quiet Skies.

Dr. Nguyen accused the FAA of ignoring its own findings. In its study, the agency said "the majority" of aircraft crossing the Woodside navigation point are from across the ocean and arrive at a quiet 8,000 feet above sea level. A "small portion" glide in, which lowers them to 6,000 feet, the agency said, adding that "there is also some vectoring activity of SFO arrivals" from the north and south.

But a chart in the analysis shows north/south traffic not only exceeding oceanic traffic, but also crossing at 6,000 feet, presumably vectoring over homes that are already 2,000 feet above sea level, Dr. Nguyen said.

She faulted the FAA for not examining offshore holding patterns as a way to reduce vectoring, and for not focusing on the Midpeninsula given its preponderance as a source of noise complaints.

Mr. Martin did not respond.

FAA responds

The Almanac asked the FAA questions on several specific issues, including whether efficiency is a higher priority than noise abatement, the feasibility of returning to older routes over the Bay, the extent to which complaints have gone up since the 2015 debut of new flight paths, the rationale for using computer models rather than actually measuring noise on the ground, and chances for higher altitude crossings over Woodside.

In response, FAA spokesman Ian Gregor referred the Almanac to a technical discussion of noise modeling, and to a May 2015 statement from FAA Administrator Michael Huerta about "a multi-year effort to update the scientific evidence on the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports."

"The FAA is sensitive to public concerns about aircraft noise. We understand the interest in expediting this research, and we will complete this work as quickly as possible," Mr. Huerta said. "This Administration takes its responsibility to be responsive to communities' concerns over air noise seriously."

A noise-related survey is ongoing in 20 cities with major airports through December 2016, the statement said.

Religious freedom?

At the Redwood City forum, a physicist echoed the opinion of many when he said he was "stunned" by the FAA's use of computer models to gauge noise impacts. The agency should "reflect ground truth" by measuring actual noise, he said.

Nancy Dietz Mosbacher said her family did not move to Woodside to live next to the airport, but that the airport had moved to Woodside – an argument heard several times in the context of other communities.

A Santa Cruz County resident accused low flying aircraft of endangering his religious freedom. "My prophet is Ralph Waldo Emerson," he told the committee, perhaps mistaking Emerson for his solitude-loving acolyte Henry David Thoreau.

Many residents spoke of a noise-reduction kit available to remedy a high-pitched tone from the Airbus A320, and that airlines flying into SFO should be required to retrofit the aircraft.

At least one resident accused the FAA of gradually moving traffic onto newer, more concentrated flight paths before claiming those paths as existing routes for implementing the Next Generation (NextGen) gliding system of arrivals.

Comments

7 people like this
Posted by PVResident
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Jun 28, 2016 at 12:48 pm

Using stop.jetnoise.net (an app developed by a local man), it's very easy to identify obnoxiously loud flights, including their altitude. While it doesn't work 100% of the time----occasionally there will be a flight directly over my house, and it says that the flight could not be identified---it still records the ones you earmark.

A bonus to this app is that you can also see how many complaints there were each day, and by how many people. It definitely makes you realize that you are not alone, when there were 17,000+ other complaints made the same day.

The vast majority of SFO flights are coming in under 6,000 feet. Many are coming in under 5,000 feet. The majority I notice turn out to be United Airlines. We were not under a flight path---or even near one---when we moved to Portola Valley, and I deeply resent that we are under one now.

The solution is simple: move the flights back over the Bay, where they belong. Stop vectoring the huge planes from Hong Kong, UAE, having them do a tight turn at low altitude directly over highly populated areas.

When you can see the cockpit window, then read "EMIRATES" on the bottom of the fuselage as it passes over your head (justas though you were taking an eye test at the optometrist) the plane is way too low. Dangerous.


4 people like this
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Congress members are deflecting responsibility. Congress passed legislation in 2012, FAA Modernization and Reform Act, that permitted the FAA to implement NextGen procedures without any regard to their impact on humans and the environment. The Wake Recategorization or Wake Recat procedure is the key to our misery. Aircraft are brought low into denser air so they can be flown slower and closer together resulting in the skies above communities near and far from airports having been taken over as arrival and departure queues. And if there are new concentrated flight paths, don’t confuse that with fewer concentrated flights paths. These concentrated flight paths are proliferating as the goals to date that Congress, the FAA, and aviation industry are primarily concerned about are more and more flights, increasing capacity endlessly, and quicker frequency of arrivals and departures, increasing efficiency. Human health and the environment are being sacrificed for the goals and for an abstract term, the economy. What economy really means with NextGen procedures is industry profits and elected officials who ensure those profits keeping their political office. What it means for citizens is committees, roundtables, task forces, noise studies, noise complaints, initiatives, reports, surveys, and so on until citizens are worn down into silence and acquiesce to the air, noise, and visual pollution of 24/7 low altitude aircraft all over our skies. Furthermore, the ultimate strategy of elected officials, FAA representatives, and this industry is to pit groups against each other, make them fight each other for non-solutions, crumbs, and discredit themselves in the process and then say, Well, sorry but we don’t seem to be able to come up with a regional solution. And yet they rig it from the start by telling different groups to come up with solutions.

Groups must stand together and not get played liked this. The industry has the money and too many officials are bought. But we have numbers and when we use the power of those numbers we can’t be stopped. Keep fighting, together!


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda

on Sep 26, 2017 at 2:38 am

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


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

Su Hong Palo Alto to close in 2019
By Elena Kadvany | 24 comments | 6,389 views

Palo Alto Measures E, F and Z
By Steve Levy | 2 comments | 1,268 views

Menlo Park Council Selections for 2018
By Stuart Soffer | 3 comments | 1,168 views

Couples: It's Normal to Get Defensive . . . Then What?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 711 views

Messiness and parenting
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 690 views