I have NO issue with the 1 minute worth of vague noise emitted by airplanes overhead... But I have HUGE issues with dueling high decibel leaf blowers that go on and on for as much as a half hour each day around my otherwise "peaceful and tranquil" backyard I attempt to enjoy. If I could post a "voice memo" here of my recordings you wouldn't believe it ! Oh yes... And don't forget that large barking dog outside in back of my home somewhere at 11:00-midnight almost nightly....
I'd gladly change for a few flyovers !

Ms, Kelley,

You're just another worthless bureaucrat!!!!!!!!

If you had done your job there would have been some conditions before you signed off. As Mr. Potter says he'll fly as many planes into San Carlos as he wants to .
100
200
300....

"If you had done your job there would have been some conditions before you signed off."

She DID her job which was defined by the contractual obligations of the airport under " the San Carlos Airport's federal grant funding requires it make the airport available "to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial." Those obligations do NOT permit Ms. Kelly to impose any flight path restrictions on SurfAir.

People just can't read written documents. Sad.

Steve I think that's a great idea, I think we should all read them.

As a public entity I wonder if all the communications between representatives of San Carlos Airport, San Mateo County as pertains to San Carlos Airport and Surf Air are available to the public.

E-mails, letters, voice mails, written and unwritten agreements, meetings, personal and public, including schedules, etc.

As our representatives I would like our working group to request and review any of the above and make them all public.

Although the Surf Air flights are indeed annoying I emphatically and wholeheartedly ditto Tricia's comment about leaf blowers. My house is surrounded by homeowners who seem to tolerate and encourage not only the daily ruckus but also the clouds of particulate matter thrown into the atmosphere. In summer months I often shut doors and windows to keep out noxious hydrocarbons. In winter months I endure additional blowing as the users try to dry the leaves before they can be effectively removed.

resident:

they're public records. Why don't you put in a request to see them under the FOIA?

I doubt you'll find anything. Surfair is operating as they are allowed to by the FAA and their regulations. If you don't like it you need to talk to the FAA. SQL has funding from the FAA and as such they must comply with the FAA's requirements. One of which is that SQL CANNOT restrict operations at the airport without the FAA's approval.

As Stevec said, read the article, you might actually learn something.

Shouldn't be a problem then,

I'm asking our representatives from the working group to request them and make it public to all.

btw, read the article, several times, a lot of people involved, would love to read the documents, e-mails letters, minutes, communications, etc, here in a public forum,

What's the problem?

resident:

no problem, but your statements and tone suggest you suspect some type of "conspiracy." I assure you, none exists. Your issue is with FAA regs. not Surfair and SQL who are abiding by them.

No conspiracy,

Perhaps Some mistakes and missed oppurtunities. With some daylight some areas may be adjusted or corrected.

don't count on it resident. We went through this a number of years ago with Redwood Shores trying to exercise control over flights at SQL. Went nowhere because it couldn't. The FAA didn't budge and they're not likely to do so now.

Tricia:

If you live in west Atherton, as your post suggests, then if the map above is accurate it would seem that you don't live anywhere near the Surf Air flight path (as a indicated by the blue line).

I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, as I am similarly not in the flight path. But I don't understand a lot of the comments I've seen in recent weeks on this website and others by folks like you who are dismissive of other's complaints.

If the noise isn't impacting you, great. If you actually are in the flight path and it still doesn't bother you, that does not mean it's not a real problem for others. People are home at different times, some people are more sensitive to noise than others, people have different sleep schedules, different acoustics in their homes (e.g., single pane windows, soundproofing characteristics in their walls), some people spend a good portion of the day distracted by music, TV noise, or phone calls and therefore may not notice the noise as much, etc.

I just don't understand the motivation of some commenters to brush off these noise complaints as if they are unwarranted. Common sense suggests that a large increase in the number of flights would probably have a real impact on noise issues. Some folks in prior threads have voiced a "tough luck" attitude (you live near an airport, what do you expect). I just wonder if this is more like someone living near a business district with a few shops woke up one day and found that they were building a Walmart there ... Not quite what they signed up for.

"I just wonder if this is more like someone living near a business district with a few shops woke up one day and found that they were building a Walmart there ... Not quite what they signed up for."

Wouldn't matter. If one buys close to a business district as I have, one buys the potential of Walmart construction. I also live near the train. If Caltrain substantially increased the number of trains they were running I wouldn't be complaining about that either. After all, I bought near railroad tracks, What did I expect? Things would never change? Not likely.

The same applies to living in a large urban area with three international airports and multiple smaller airports. Logic dictates there is going to be aircraft noise. It also dictates that change is likely and growth is likely and with that will come increased flights and increased noise.

If you look at how many people are actually making complaints it's around 450. That's in an area of millions of people. I think I could find that many people to complain about almost anything out of a population that size.

As I have stated repeatedly an individual's reaction to noise in general and to specific types of noises is varied. I understand that some people are very sensitive to noise just as some people are very sensitive to light. I understand that some people are more sensitive to airplane noise than to leaf blowers.

Public policy is a balancing act between the needs of all and the concerns of some.

In the case of airplane activity public policy gives, appropriately I believe, a much higher priority to safety than it does to the understandable and real concerns of a small number of people to the noise created by those airplanes. It is remarkable to think of the millions of aircraft flights in the Bay area over the years with so few if any mid air collisions - an outcome not to be taken lightly given the frequency with which all other forms of transportation have such encounters.
As noted the Bay area airspace is both very complicated and very congested - it is not possible to make one change without having an impact on all the other parts of the system.

It is a balance and so far the advantages of safety far outweigh the disadvantages of noise.

Dear Resident:

Conspiracy? Daylight/missed opportunities?

Such as an opportunity to prevent commerce, to prevent airplanes from flying in the sky???

FAA grant fund requirements are unquestionably clear......always have been and its pretty clear you are new to the scene...oh boy, another person new to the regulations of the FAA and we all have to suffer during your educational process.

And then to attack the character of the airport manager? As the old saying goes if you can't attack the argument attack the person (its called the Ad Hominem Fallacy - go look it up...PLEASE)

We all have a right to not be abused but also a duty to tolerate. We have chosen to live in a metropolitan area with seven million people, over 100 cities and 28 airports all of which were probably established before your date of birth.

Do you want to help the planet? 24,000 kids die everyday because of poverty related circumstances - you live in, arguably, one of the richest locations in the world, go help those kids and leave us out of your drama ......

The FAA letter also says the airport is allowed to adopt regulations that put into place "reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport."

Please read above, "allowed to adopt regulations" Such as noise abatement? "Conditions to be met by all"

Noise abatement procedures have been in place at SQL for years, Almost all Airports, GA and Commercial have such procedures in place. It can be done, and has been done, You just need to someone with the strength to negotiate it in to place.

It is virtually impossible to enact noise regulations which prohibit a flight on a FAA approved approach by an FAA certified aircraft.

As to the old argument that you knew the airport was there when you bought it.

I agree, When I bought I knew I was surrounded by Airports, but I wouldn't and didn't buy next to was a large Commercial Airport. Too noisy, too many flights, too much pollution, etc. As a GA pilot I didn't mind buying near a GA airport and knew what to expect.

WHAT I DIDN'T EXPECT AND SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO EXPECT IS A COMMERCIAL AiIRLINE FLYING INTO AND OUT OF SAN CARLOS AIRPORT.

SURF AIR IS A COMMERCIAL AIRLINE AND SHOULDN'T BE FLYING AS A SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL AIRLINE INTO AND OUT OF A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT LIKE SAN CARLOS.

THEY NOW HAVE over 200 operations a week, Soon to be 400 Operations a Week,

THEY CURRENTLY FLY OUT OF 10 AIRPORTS AND GROWING, IF SOUTHWEST OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL CARRIER LIKES SURF AIR'S MODEL NOTHING TO STOP THEM FROM FLYING INTO SAN CARLOS OR PALO ALTO,

BETTER DO YOUR HOMEWORK NOW PALO ALTO, SURF AIR MAY BE COMING TO AN AIRPORT NEAR YOU.

Peter,

Do your homework every airport in the bay area including San Carlos and Palo Alto have noise abatement procedures in place.

Maybe what you mean is the FAA approved approaches incorporate noise abatement in those approaches,

please be clear for everyone to understand.

SFO
SJO
PAO
SQL.......etc. etc.

I stand by my posting - no noise regulation could prohibit a certified aircraft that is operating legally from a particular airport to fly an established FAA approach pattern.

Dear Resident:

I don't agree with your priorities or your reasoning, you live in the middle of millions of people and the infrastructure necessary to support the process of carrying on life....and you want to cry foul with inflammatory ALL CAPS drama?

I'm sure this is not only place in life where you express yourself in ALL CAPS......

Have a good day...

...gladly signing off

Peter you and I agree,

I just wanted to include the following as an explanation for those who don't understand the nuances,

" As some FAA approved approaches already include/incorporate noise abatement in those approaches",

I believe this to be the case that all bay area airports have noise abatement procedures. All Faa approved. Please explain that "operating legally" includes following already established approaches that have noise abatement incorporated in them.

The way you have phrased it, Some people might get the impression noise abatement changes can not be added safely if approved by the faa,

An example for the Palo Alto residents affected by nextgen, would be to make faa approved noise abatement changes such as your suggestion of the herringbone approach to sfo. It has been done at SQL and more could be added.

"It has been done at SQL "

Please document this - I am aware of only one IFR approach to SQL and that is the one that SurfAir usually flies.

Usually airport noise abatement procedures are:
1 - advisory only
2 - deal only with the area immediately surrounding a specific airport.

Your right,

Noise abatement does exist at SQL, at this time it is only for departures, but SA uses and is required to use them,

They were and can be implemented/revised/changed/modified and newly created.

@Why Dismissive?

You are incorrect when you say a large increase in flights.

SQL has had an annual decrease in airport operations year over year for over a decade. This is a malady suffered by many small airports. As the cost of operating an aircraft increases (they pay %50 more for fuel than you do at a gas station) the number of GA pilots and operations has decreased.

SO there are ACTUALLY FEWER flights than before.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
N618BD
SES; SMEL-Instrument

No aircraft operating from SQL is REQUIRED to use the noise abatement procedures.

Those procedures are voluntary and they state that:

"SAFETY ALWAYS SUPERSEDES NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES"

Here are the SQL Noise Abatement Procedures:

Web Link

And note from the map how tightly constrained SQL is by the SFO Class B airspace.

Peter,

Thank you for the clarification re; the requirement for using prescribed N.A. I wonder what percentage of pilots disregard them. Probably generates an unpleasant radio call from tower to pilot.


Re; Noise abatement in general, please concede, New noise abatement procedures have been and can be implemented/revised/changed/modified and newly created at any airport. I believe the procedures for departing SQL were implemented after enough back and forth w/ Redwood Shores residents and SQL, w/ FAA approval.


Thank you for your contributions,

Peter,

Thanks for the NA docs.

The noise abatement procedures for departures from SQL is actually fairly easy to fly, and I have flown it many times. I would suspect that MOST GA pilots fly them since most departures are right crosswind (go to the Oakland side of the bay). And as depicted flys over non-populated areas on our way over the Bay.

Altitude has LOTS to do with hearing A/C noise from the ground. so we try to climb before reaching populated areas.

Roy

As per the article above that started this blog, If Surf Air has no restrictions as does any other plane(s) flying into SQL any time, any amount of flights, Why was a separate agreement written. Can a copy be posted here so the public at large can read it? See below,

In response to questions from Atherton City Council member Elizabeth Lewis, airport manager Kelly said Surf Air operates under a ( "permit agreement" ) with the San Carlos Airport, signed by her as the airport manager. Surf Air is one of two "charter companies" operating at the airport she said.

Can we see it?

Seems like a simple request. BTW, Surf Air operates as an airline not a charter co.

Peter I respect your knowledge and opinion, what say ye,

Surf Air,

Charter Co. or Airline?

"Can we see it?"

Have you asked Ms. Kelly for a copy of the permit agreement?

In my experience every aircraft owner/operator at an airport is required to sign an agreement which specifies their level of insurance etc.. There is nothing unusual about such agreements.

Here is the standard Santa Clara County agreement:

Web Link

Peter I respect your knowledge and opinion, what say ye,

Surf Air,

Charter Co. or Airline?

resident:

read this: Web Link

You'll have your answer. The FAA considers Surfair a Part 135 carrier. It matters not what you, Peter Carpenter or anyone besides the FAA thinks.

So whats your answer

Charter or Airline

Menlo Voter - We can lead Resident to information but we cannot make her understand it.

As your both so informed, I'm at a loss as to why no answer?

"As your both so informed, I'm at a loss as to why no answer?"

Because you can't read. SurfAir is a 135 Operator.

I really expected more from you both, Make a commitment,

Airline or charter carrier,

you can't read. SurfAir is a 135 Operator.

Ms. Kelly said that (three )other charter companies have an additional concession agreement with the county because they also lease office space at the airport, but that Surf Air does not have such an agreement. Ms. Kelly said (four) of the airport's (charter companies) operate the same Pilatus PC-12 aircraft that Surf Air uses response to questions from Atherton City Council member Elizabeth Lewis, airport manager Kelly said Surf Air operates under a permit agreement with the San Carlos Airport, signed by her as the airport manager. Surf Air is one of (two) "charter companies operating at the airport under permit agreements, she said.

I'm sorry just too darn dumb to figure out the part 135, Looks like Ms. Kelly calls them a (Charter Co.) One of two, three or four?

When I googled difference between an Airline and a Charter Co. , It sounds like SA is an Airline,

"I'm sorry just too darn dumb to figure out the part 135"

True.


"Most charter operators run under FAR Part 135, which is titled "Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft."

FAR Part 135 applies to turbojet engine powered aircraft with 1-30 seats, non-transport category turbo-propeller powered aircraft with 10-19 seats, and transport category turbo props with 20-30 seats. Applicants for a FAR Part 135 certificate must have exclusive use of at least one aircraft.

FAR Part 135 is more restrictive than FAR Part 91, but some single aircraft owners might consider adding an aircraft to someone else's FAR Part 135 certificate. In this case however, the concept of operational control is important. The certificate holder is responsible for operational control, and must be able to document and show operational control over the crew and aircraft. FAR Part 135 covers charters, but not brokers. Here are a few other important aspects of FAR Part 135.

FAR Part 135 defines several important roles. The certificate holder is the entity that has applied for and holds the FAR Part 135 certificate. It also specifies both a pilot-in-command, and a second-in-command (which is not always needed). The pilot-in-command must have a minimum of 1,500 hours of experience and must remain in command for the entire flight."

That helps

Thanks,

One last question that last line,

PIC must remain in command for the entire flight,

Does that mean at the controls for the entire flight or can the PIC give operation over to the right seat.

Thanks, for your patience,

PIC means pilot in command - it does not mean pilot at the controls.

"FAR Part 1 defines the pilot-in-command as follows: "Pilot-in-command means the person who:
1. Has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
2. Has been designated as pilot-in- command before or during the flight; and
3. Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.""

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Captain and first officer—the captain, who is the pilot in command, typically sits in the left seat.
The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft is the person aboard the aircraft who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight. This would be the "captain" in a typical two- or three-pilot aircrew, or "pilot" if there is only one certified and qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft. The PIC must be legally certified (or otherwise authorized) to operate the aircraft for the specific flight and flight conditions, but need not be actually manipulating the controls at any given moment. The PIC is the person legally in charge of the aircraft and its flight safety and operation, and would normally be the primary person liable for an infraction of any flight rule.

That's what I thought,

Just still can't figure out if SA is an Airline or a Charter co.

Have a good night

Resident - You have exceeded your allowed number of free answers. Future questions will be ignored.

Wow the emotion and hysteria is reaching epic proportions, with grandstanding local politicians pandering to a small minority of residents.

750 people signed a silly petition against Surf Air. Well, if we use that standard then Surf Air wins bc there are thousands of people who didn't sign it. Not to mention actual customers who far outnumber the complainers.

There's no reasoning with some people. It doesn't matter that Surf Air is operating completely and entirely within the law. It makes no difference that they're only a drop in the bucket of local air traffic and noise. Or that the FAA set guidelines for safety purposes, not homeowners property values.

No wonder Surf Air officials stopped trying to reason with this bunch. Why bother?

If 750 actually go through the trouble to put their personal information on a petition against Surf Air, There are probably another 7500 who oppose it but won't

Don't be dismissive,

"Don't be dismissive,"

We are not being dismissive, simply trying to put these concerns in perspective .

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:19 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
As I have stated repeatedly an individual's reaction to noise in general and to specific types of noises is varied. I understand that some people are very sensitive to noise just as some people are very sensitive to light. I understand that some people are more sensitive to airplane noise than to leaf blowers.

Public policy is a balancing act between the needs of all and the concerns of some.

In the case of airplane activity public policy gives, appropriately I believe, a much higher priority to safety than it does to the understandable and real concerns of a small number of people to the noise created by those airplanes. It is remarkable to think of the millions of aircraft flights in the Bay area over the years with so few if any mid air collisions - an outcome not to be taken lightly given the frequency with which all other forms of transportation have such encounters.
As noted the Bay area airspace is both very complicated and very congested - it is not possible to make one change without having an impact on all the other parts of the system.

It is a balance and so far the advantages of safety far outweigh the disadvantages of noise.

I can't believePalo Alto online closed a blog thread, Come on guys censorship, Really?

Will see if the Almanac has the same weak knee'd response. I hope not. I wonder if they got any pressure from Surf Air, or it's local high end investors, Sad....

Before this thread ends, This goes out to Surf Air execs, I know you read this.

I live under Ameby, and note to you, It's been quieter lately, I hope this isn't temporary until the comment noise dies down. then back to your ever expanding schedule. I know you have people that read these threads so I'm sure you're aware of the complaints.

Just so you know if you varied the flight path from Ameby even 500' on either side it would solve the problem and I would go away. Alternating just 500' laterally might solve Most of your complaints, Alternate 1, 500 left of Ameby and 1 500' right , 1 right on Ameby, keep alternating and I'm gone, You will never hear from me again.

I understand on vfr days only. I can live with that.

"I live under Ameby, and note to you, It's been quieter lately,"

Actually SurfAir IS spreading out their approachs (as long as visual flight rules prevail) and they are flying more of their approaches clean (with the wheels and flaps up) until they are closer to the airport.

Originally all of their approaches were precisely on the AMEBY IFR centerline and most were flown with flaps and wheels down as early at northern Palo Alto.

Progress - the result of ongoing discussion between the community and SurfAir, not the FAA, not law suits, not boycotts.

Dear Neighbor in Atherton who wrote: "Just so you know if you varied the flight path from Ameby even 500' on either side it would solve the problem and I would go away. Alternating just 500' laterally might solve Most of your complaints, Alternate 1, 500 left of Ameby and 1 500' right , 1 right on Ameby, keep alternating and I'm gone, You will never hear from me again."

Are you really suggesting the solution is that the planes fly over someone else's neighborhood rather than yours?

No, If you read it,

I suggest it be split 3 ways including one of the 3 directly over my home, the other 2 500' to the side of my home. I will hear all 3.

Are you willing to do the same?

Peter,

they're still dirty past 3 miles+ out. and while clean makes a big difference, I'm trying to compromise

I feel for the N. Fairoaks residents.

neighbor:

they're already spreading their approaches on vfr days. I live on the ECR side of the approach (about a block from ECR) and they frequently fly directly over my home. And they have been doing so for quite some time, so I guess you can "go away."

Regarding the statement directing me to "not be so dismissive"... this issue has been going on for 2 years. There have been many attempts at reason and dialogue and accommodations. I'm just pointing out that none of these are ever sufficient for people who seem to have an ax to grind and won't listen to reason.

If anything, those folks are the ones being dismissive and selfish. But I guess you made that point by suggesting that moving the flight patterns onto east palo alto would solve the problem. Or by insinuating that "evil" Surf Air somehow threatened or blackmailed a newspaper into retracting a story. If anything, the press has been quite vocal (biased, in my opinion) against Surf Air.

And regarding the comment that 750 petition signateurs indicates 7500 people who are "really" offended: you could double or triple your number and it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to all the general population of our area.

This is really a sad case of people focusing only on their interests, refusing to face reality, and blaming one service for a much larger problem.

John, C.

"I can't find where I said move to East Palo Alto" Please locate and let me know?

And what would you recommend for the folks who live in the least affluent area, are the least represented and are the most affected.

N. Fair Oaks, I suggest you go over to the residential neighborhood South of Woodside, and Redwood City border for a while and listen. They also are the least represented as they are not incorporated.

neighbor:

my office is next to North Fair Oaks. Surfair flies over on a regular basis. They're not that loud. Knowing many of the folks that live in North Fair Oaks, I'd bet they have bigger issues to worry about than 20 seconds of aircraft noise every so often.

I'm surprised by this conversation and its tone. I live right in the new flight path of these commercial flights and, it's true, they are low and loud. I understand that I may need to learn to live with it. What seems too bad are the people in this stream of comments unaffected by the noise who have no empathy. We have leaf blowers here, too. One begins next door each week at eight, and our homes are fairly close together. I am not complaining about them. I've never lived in a neighborhood that doesn't have this type of noise. If I had a huge beef, I'd go next door to ask my neighbors to start a bit later if they could. We do that in this neighborhood, and it's pretty lovely. We have barking dogs, too. Ditto. But it is true that none of us expected a commercial airline to begin flying low overhead when we bought. Do I still love my neighborhood? Of course. Am I sorry to read the tone of this comment exchange? I am. The residents impacted by the flight plan are simply trying to have that 'conversation with the neighbor,' just with the FAA. Not everyone is civil, unfortunately, but all care and are voicing their concerns in the way available to them.

Amy,

The tone of these comments is always the same: fantasy versus reality.

Surf Air is one of many, many airlines flying over your home - over all of our homes. It makes no difference whether they are commercial or not; they're operating completely within the law and performing a valuable service for many of your same neighbors.

It doesn't seem very neighborly or conversational to single out one company (and raise all kinds of false innuendos) when many others are doing the exact same thing. And it doesn't seem very safe to push flight patterns into direct path of commercial flights to SFO, as some have suggested the FAA should do.

Most importantly, it's sad to see local town officials, who clearly have no power here, pandering to a few emotional residents at the expense of the greater good.

@Amy

That is NOT a NEW flight path. That approach has NOT changed in years.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
N618BD
SMEL&SES - Instrument

well said John C

Suggest everyone respect those who live in N. Fair Oaks not work there. It is not up to you to tell someone else how intrusive Surf Air is on their quality of life, with over 7,000 flights scheduled this year.

Everyone keeps saying don't move the flights to a less affluent area. N. Fair Oaks is the least affluent area and has the most flights with out moving anything. If you're not willing to spend an hour there around 6:30-7:30 in the evening and imagine what it's like to try to enjoy your back yard with family and friends w/ a 10,000 lb, PC-12 at 800', flaps and gear down then you have no say in their complaints. I have...

neighbor:

as I've said, I work there. We get the flights over all day long. Just not that noisy. I also know many people that live in that neighborhood. As I said, they have far bigger issues they are concerned with than 20 seconds of aircraft noise every so often. Like, can they make their rent. A little noise just doesn't factor into their current quality of life.

neighbor:

if you "have a say", that suggests you live in North Fair Oaks rather than "Menlo Park, other." Seems a little inconsistent. As previously noted, Surfair is spreading their flights out, so, per your statements, you should "go away." Unless, of course, that was just BS. The fact is they can't "spread their flights" the closer those flights are to the airport. North Fair Oaks is closer to the airport. Do you understand that?

Wow, what a bunch of privileged whiners. And especially so from the GA pilot who writes in all caps and thinks SA shouldn't fly into his little private airport.

Good for San Carlos Airport, they're successful! Business for the local economies. And I bet there is a good slice of the SA customers who come from Menlo Park and Atherton areas. You guys in Atherton must realize you live in the middle of a giant metropolis right? These whiners must be the freeriders who are living large on daddy's money and don't understand what it takes to make it. You want silence? Go move to the mountains. In Mendocino. Plenty of estate lots up there.

Way to go San Carlos Airport, and way to go Surf Air, for providing a needed service. And congratulations on your successes!

It is important to educate the public about their rights as tax paying residents of the county - by simply repeatedly clarifying a few key points:

1. Surf Air serves ~ 140-160 people/day by flying ~ 40 flights/day over Menlo Park/Atherton/Redwood City, yet disturbs peace and creates major irritation for tens of thousands about every 15 minutes or so; this is bad business.
2. The reason such bad business is even allowed - is because San Mateo county has contractual obligation before FAA "not to discriminate against any aircraft or activities at San Carlos airport".
3.The reason there is such a contractual obligation is because San Mateo county receives grant money from FAA every year - which wants to keep the airport in good working order at all times, and wants to have as many pilots trained on all kinds of aircraft as possible.
4. The said contractual obligation (otherwise called "grant assurances act") wording about not allowing any discrimination against any aircraft or activity is very vague, and can be interpreted in many different ways.
5. Surf Air and other commercial operators use this vague language to justify and protect their actions - completely disregarding any considerations of their negative effects on residential neighborhoods.
6. It is time San Mateo county imposes severe restrictions on types of aircraft using the San Carlos airport and times of their operation - in consideration of the residents concerns. The FAA will not challenge these restrictions - because they are reasonable. The concept of "reasonable" is spelled out in the same "grant assurances act".
7. In order for the County to act, however, - every concerned resident has to make their voice heard by calling Slocum, Horsley and San Carlos airport - and do this as often as possible.

Note:

All activities aimed at getting the FAA to allow different paths for the airplanes was a deliberate red herring designed and implemented by Surf Air and Gretchen Kelly from San Carlos Airport. Under the guise of "working with the public" they led the people down this path, while being fully aware that FAA will not allow any changes in flight paths - because their first concern is safety - as it should be. We do not want the planes to fly any path which is less safe than the one determined by FAA. We want the businesses to fly quiter airplanes, and during limited times. If this creates a problem for the business - stop the business or move the business elsewhere.

irritated:

yes all 750 people should call and complain. Then the tens of thousands it doesn't bother or who don't care should call and register their support. Wonder which way things will go?

You bought a house in the flight path of an airport. An airport that's been there since the 40's or 50's. Get over it or to use your idea, "move elsewhere."

Those who try to change the subject from airplane noise to leafblowers noise, etc. are probably those benefiting from SC airport directly (employees, investors, etc).

This is an airplane noise forum. If one is concerned with leaf blowers - please open a leaf blower forum.

People who are really not bothered with the airplane noise do not participate in these discussions. They have better things to do.

People who take the time to critisize those who complain - obviously have an ax to grind. They enjoy their neighbors discomfort. For them this is a show unfolding before their eyes - and they like to issue "smart" comments, but not signing them properly.

Strange. If the vast majority of your neighbors agree with you - why are you afraid to sign under your thoughts?

Cowardly behavior. Not helpful. Shame.

Surf Air

According to Web Trak, URF212 at 400' over Maple street Redwood City,

This aircraft is 47' long and 53' wide at 10,000 lbs.

At 400' above ground over homes.

"At 400' above ground over homes."

And?