The article seems to have left off a key piece to the current puzzle... why was the alternative route stopped?

Sorry if it is not clear in the article. The county says the FAA has told them the trial was for six months and the six months is up.
We will update when more information becomes available.

This is such bs
The county didnt know
What lousy representation
This is a big deal suggest the county figure it out

Whatever happened to the survey

Suggest this was orchestrated to get people gradually used to the noise

Call Horsley Sullivan and the airport at every flight

Barbara
Can you publish the new/current flight schedule

Why would this get reported the day before it takes effect?

Unbelievable. Our fine government (FAA) at work again. They should keep the alternative route in place/use until they finalize their analysis and come up with an even better solution for our communities.

If I read this right and if the facts are correct, the county board of supervisors authorized a study to be done regarding voice AT San Carlos Airport? Why not the overhead noise affecting local residents? As well as a study on the flight times. Who's doing this study? How much are they paid for doing this and what time limit did the county officials put into the contract?

And how can a study as this not be completed? It was authorized, according to this article which is quoting Mr. Horsley, in March, 2016. Who of the supervisors is in charge of this study? As in, who would be the person responsible for finding out what has caused this time frame and when will it be done?

Do the officials not follow through on their payouts?

Sorry. That should read regarding "noise."

Beth - The study is about noise connected to the airport. Here are links to a few of the stories we have written about it.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

It looks like some of the other commenters don't realize that perhaps not as many people were upset about the noise as they thought. And maybe it was just a squeaky, nimby, wheel kind of thing. I know I feel that way and in the survey told them how not bothered We are by there air traffic noise and thought it was a waste of taxpayer money to further the study.

If you don't want to live in a major metropolitan area with lots of air traffic noise caused by consumer demand. Move. I'm sure there's less air traffic noise in Modesto.

It was ironically hilarious that the wealthier neighborhoods squeaked the loudest.

EE@Pilot. You suggest calling Horsley!. I've tried that, to no avail. The FAA wants us to give up, just why I don't know. Who is acting on behalf of us? It's not Congress since it was a congressional committee that proposed the new rules. Who is congress representing? Not us, it seems. The airlines are happy as long as the new routes save fuel costs. Hmm. Money, as usual, is at the bottom of this. So, how much support did the congressional committee members get from airline companies?

I've lived in MP for 27 hears. When I bought my home in the Willows....there was NO airline noise. I'm not wealthy and I certainly won't move to Modesto. It is incumbent on FAA and the Board of Supes to protect citizens in San Mateo/Santa Clara Counties from noise pollution...not to speak of of air pollution. Between Surf Air and traffic to/from SFO, the noise nearly 24 hours/day is distressing! Flights arriving to SFO come over our house as late at 2 AM and resume as early as 4 AM.

Who do we contact to complain? The quiet over the last months has been such a huge relief. The writer from central Menlo can move to Modesto; the rest of us will fight for change.

Chris:

keep tilting at windmills.

We used to have so many more airports in the SF Bay Area (go check out Hiller Museum in San Carlos & the SFO Airport museum) and sadly many have since closed. Airports are an important part of our national transportation infrastructure and the growth in air traffic represents progress and prosperity for our communities. (We also need more train connections, but that's a different topic.) Smaller airports represent an underutilized resource that relieve congestion from larger airports & the freeway.

With very very few exceptions, SFO, OAK, SJC, SQL HWD, PAO, RHV, CCR, STS, APC, LVK, TCY, MOD, SCK, etc. etc. airports were there before you bought your house. They just may not have been used very much at the time back then. It's just like when the Innisfree condo developers did their required EPA noise study for Redwood City on Sep 12, 2001. That was the day after 9/11 and NO airplanes were flying that day b/c the US National Airspace was shut down for the rest of the week. So of course that day was the quietest

Technology has progressed to bring quieter & more fuel efficient airplane engines. Unfortunately with the long development/certification/deployment cycles, and the high cost of buying a new plane, it takes time to upgrade what you have available to you.

I would like to know what the results of the FAA analysis is, that is something we can all look forward to. Perhaps they will decide that the VFR Bayside route is acceptable and reinstate it. I'm guessing that the FAA is considering spacing and sequencing concerns in the crowded skies, and whether or not moving planes over the Bay posed a safety concern for flights arriving and departing other airports in the area. Planes must maintain a minimum distance of vertical and horizontal separation for safety reasons.

By the way, Modesto Airport (MOD) is a larger airport with longer runways than San Carlos, 2 runways in fact. So does Stockton airport. Both of those airports can handle small jets. So moving out there won't solve your noise problem long term, as the Bay Are a continues to grow and the Valley becomes more populated.

Airplanes flying overhead are the sound of freedom. Compare to the People's Republic of China where private ownership of aircraft was illegal until 2003 and all airspace was tightly controlled by the military until 2011. Now general aviation is beginning to grow in the PRC as the economy makes progress.

It is ridiculous to create a battle between the Santa Clara County and San Mateo County residents.
San Mateo County should RESIST SurfAir to use San Carlos airport from the day one instead of suggesting dumping the air nosies to the neighbor county in particular to the Santa Clara Count/ City of Sunnyvale, etc. Whoever suggested the BVA is very self-centered without considering the impacts to other neighborhoods. As the bottom line, we together should oppose SurfAir to use an airport located in a high populated area. San Mateo County/San Carlos airport should stop taking SurfAir flights, or SurfAir flights should be routed to a remote airport. A SurfAir plane serves a handful of passengers only but impacts thousands of residents' lives. The private company makes profits by sacrafying residents quality of lives that are totally unaccepatble. If San Mateo County/San Carlo airport would like to take SurfAir, they should suggest an effective way to solve the air noises created by SurfAir, but no more BVA, no more air nosies dumping to your neighbor communities please. Thank you!

Barabara can we get surf airs new/current schedule

Also sullivan gave out his phone number at the last meeting to the public does anyone have that number

"Our pilots are going to be pretty disappointed" to no longer be able to use the Bayside route, he said. "They enjoyed flying it."

Of course you are going to be disappointed, since your pilots are not the residents from Sunnyvale, and they love to fly over homes of somebody else!

In this article, all I can read is "me, us", I do not see any representative from areas influenced by BVA commenting at all. Wait, wasn't it your original intention? Let's sneak into the back yard of the residents in other county, and dump all the flights to them without (hopefully) letting them know.

This entire program was a farce. Why should Surf Air be so arrogant as to shift their noise to other communities especially Sunnyvale to keep things quiet for Atherton? They knew known better, but were too arrogant to listen.

Jon
As an aviation consultant

Are you personally affected?

As an expert what would you recommend
Thank you for participating

Private pilot:

who is "Jon?"

If you want to know Surfair's schedule you can go to their website. Surfair.com

Jon is hardly a no-noise kind of guy...

Web Link

The Surf Air website wants some user info before giving out a schedule.

Here's an ordered list of 20 weekday arrivals which I gleaned from FlightAware:

urf126 sba-sql 0610-0720
urf140 bur-sql 0630-0747
urf154 hhr-sql 0630-0753
urf178 sba-sql 0740-0850
urf111 hhr-sql 0815-0939
urf128 sba-sql 0930-1040
urf142 bur-sql 1000-1119
urf130 trk-sql 1045-1135
urf106 hhr-sql 1100-1223
urf161 sba-sql 1200-1309
urf144 bur-sql 1430-1547
urf150 trk-sql 1500-1553
urf132 sba-sql 1555-1658
urf039 trk-sql 1630-1723
urf152 sba-sql 1710-1813
urf156 hhr-sql 1745-1907
urf146 bur-sql 1830-1950
urf134 sba-sql 1945-2047
urf113 hhr-sql 2015-2136
urf153 sba-sql 2045-2148

Not all flights go every day.

MV,
Jon posted above from Rodgers Aviation Consulting,

Looking at Bills web link about Jon, You can decide for yourself where he stands,

It sounds like from his post he is from Sunnyvale and affected by the noise, but I question that after reading the link,

Which brings up a good question, Why shouldn't there be a curfew on flights into SQL?

SJO is able to install and enforce one.

As per Barbara Wood,

"Sorry if it is not clear in the article. The county says the FAA has told them the trial was for six months and the six months is up.
We will update when more information becomes available."

Barbara,

Based on your quote, "the county says" it sounds like you have an informed contact at the county, Can you please share that with us.

Thank you,

As a Sunnyvale resident who has had SURF air flight noise thrust on me for the 6 month trial period, I will do everthing in my power to stop the BVA from returning. BVA was instituted without even informing the residents who have had to endure their noise! SURF air serves the needs of a few and provides noise to the residents who can't afford to use their services. SURF air should fly over the home of those who utilize it- not over my home. BVA sucks.

As someone that lived in Sunnyvale while Moffett was still an active P3 base, I can only shake my head at those that complain about noise from Surfair flights. We had nearly CONSTANT overflights of P3's daily. No one complained. We all knew Moffett was there when our homes were purchased. Hell, they were there when those homes were built. You think Surfair flights are bad? You don't know from noise.

@Menlo voter, I bought my home in Sunnyvale 20 years ago, knowing there were military flights. I am tolerant of them. I have no tolerance for the barrage of SURF AIR flights because my opinion was not considered prior to inserting them over Sunnyvale. Let them fly over your home - not mine!

Paul B -
Are the flights still coming over your home now that Surf Air has had to change back to the GPS route only? Information from a presentation by San Mateo County at a town hall meeting in Sunnyvale in October Web Link
showed that all but three of the complaints that were filed with the San Carlos Airport about Surf Air from Sunnyvale residents came from people under the GPS route, which Surf Air has flown since beginning operations in 2013, and not from those living under the Bayside route. Surf Air continued to fly the GPS route about 40 percent of the time during the six month trial period.
I will check with the county to see if they have updated figures from after that date and include in future stories.

Paul B:

has the FAA, SFO, SJC or OAK consulted with you about the changes they've made to their landing patterns? Didn't think so. Oh, and they do fly over my home with regularity. Doesn't bother me.

@Menlo Voter: It would DEFINITELY bother me. Those planes are louder than the jets that fly high in the sky over our neighborhood, and just as loud as those annoying boy-toys that wanna-be pilots fly over everyone's houses. :(

Hi Barbara Wood,

1. Without notifying people what is going to happen, and then justify this sneaking approach by counting the complaints is invalid, the 3 out of xxx complaint you quoted was ridiculous and you said you did not hear the 'boo's from the video?

2. Sunnyvale and Cupertino suffer from the same amount of Surf Air flights and noise as Midpeninsula residents, so it should not become a war between residents from the two areas in the first place.

3. Moving problem from one area to another is not acceptable, and it's morally bad.

mv, I know from noise as i lived in the barracks at moffett field at the height of p-3 activity, 24 hours a day, flew in em, fixed em, flew in patterns w/ them in a 150 slotted in behind them w/wing tip vortices, and lot's of wake turbulence,
so i know noise,

what I am bothered by is a quiet ga airport that's been operating w/out a scheduled airline forever or at least since after most of us bought our homes.

As a licensed pilot, I have no problem with general and commercial aviation. I just don't like Surf Air sneaking in a scheduled noisy airline into a ga airport and when questioned about it's activity lying about the number of flights at public meetings.

The bva is not an end all but was a great help, i question the motivation of SA, the FAA and the sincerity of the Supes to keep it working as a compromise,

We had one days notice from a local newspaper that they were suspending the bva, very unfair,

private pilot:

I take exception to your characterization that SA "snuck" into SQL.They started advertising before they even had planes. Anyone paying attention would know they were coming.

A quiet airport now has commercial aviation? It always has. There has always been commercial aviation at SQL. There are other operators flying Pilatus and Beechcraft in and out of there and they have been for some time.

I also question they closed down the test with one day's notice. It is my understanding that this was presented as a temporary test which would then be evaluated for furthere use. I'm sure you know how fast our government does anything.

If we talk about fairness, the VBA itself is a totally unfair approach to the communities who are impacted by VBA. As good citizens, we (each community) should all take the fair amount share of air noises from commercial flights and military jets, but SurfAir doesn't belong to the share!
My humble opinions for those community members who favor VBA:
1). Yes, FAA doesn't always notify a community for a route change; yet, VBA is not the original flight path for SurfAir. It's an altered route not proposed by FAA. FAA had requested the San Mateo county to notify the impacted communities before VBA trial, unfortunately the county miss-conducted, otherwise , there may not even be a trial. How possible the county forgot to notify the neighbor communities for such event???
2). Please don't rely on KSQL subjective complaint counts for the sake of continuing BVA, the counting is bias.
3). Please don't relate how loud Muffet was to SurfAir noises as they are not related! The communities signed up for military needs but not for SurfAir!

Again: Let's not have a fight for SurfAir noises, let's work together to urge the officials to stop SurfAir using KSQL. If San Mateo county/KSQL decided to take SurfAir, the county should come up a long term plan to mitigate the SurfAir noises for the residents. Intentionally shifting air noises from one community to another community is not the solution to solve SurfAir issue. VBA is an unfair approach to other communities, so no more VBA!

Spring:

the county does not have a choice in the matter. They took federal money for the airport and that means they cannot discriminate against any one use.

M. Voter: thanks for the info! This is the key!
The county can't just take the benefit but dump the unwated noiese to others. The county should come up an effective noise mitigation plan for San Mateo county residents but not just shift the noises to other communities! Please count me in for fighting the SurfAir noises, but not for VBA ! Thanks!

The VBA significantly reduces the total ground noise footprint of SurfAir operations over populated areas and, given that SurfAir's flights cannot be stopped or restricted, is a wise public policy choice.

The portion of the VBA that is over the lower populated areas of Sunnyvale eliminates a portion of the GPS approach that is over the more densely populated areas of Sunnyvale so there is in fact no net negative impact on Sunnyvale.

When the new route was suggested it was not followed by many of the surf air flights. The number of flights may have decreased some over the Atherton / Menlo Park area but for the most part it was still noisy most of the day. It's obvious that we have no representation from our elected officials and surf air ignores the route over the bay. As usual money talks and all the elected officials turn a cold shoulder toward the affected residents. No surprise

Our website, CALM THE SKIES, is still available with the complaint numbers for the airport Web Link
COMPLAINT LINE 844-266-6266
You can also call the Supervisor offices
Warren Slocum (650-363-4570), Don Horsley (650-363-4569)
I don't have Sullivan's number otherwise I would post it.
We are not quitting...but everyone needs to reengage again...

SMCO Board of Supervisors Website: Web Link

2017 SMCO Board of Supervisors:
Dave Pine–1st District: (650) 363-4571 - dpine@smcgov.org
Carole Groom–2nd District: (650) 363-4568 - cgroom@smcgov.org
Don Horsley–3rd District, President: (650) 363-4569 - dhorsley@smcgov.org
Warren Slocum–4th District: (650) 363-4570 - wslocum@smcgov.org
David Canepa–5th District: (650) 363-4572 - dcanepa@smcgov.org

John Maltbie, County Manager: (650) 363-4121 - jmaltbie@smcgov.org

Thank you Pearl,

Surf Air has increased their number of flights,

It's become intolerable, There's something about the Pilatus that is more annoying than other planes,

It's only going to get worse when spring and summer arrive and we try to enjoy being outdoors while being buzzed every 30 minutes, 7 days a week,

Suggest everyone continue to call Horsley and the airport to complain and keep them interested, it does work.

In response to Privat Pilot's question, I am not personally affected but am professionally affected. I made mitigation proposals to Surf Air, San Mateo County, the proprietor of SQL and ultimately responsible for the issue, and to the City of Sunnyvale. However, none has expressed any interest.

Is this case similar or nearly the same?

Web Link

"Is this case similar or nearly the same?"

No Pearl, two different things. the court decision was in regards the implementation of new flight paths to SFO. Has nothing to do with Surfair.