|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Carol Ford, the president of the San Carlos Airport Association, made up of pilots and businesses that use the airport, said association members have several reasons to oppose a draft airport curfew ordinance recently proposed by San Mateo County.
She said the proposed ordinance, which would restrict the hours and numbers of flights into and out of the airport, may not be legal and punishes those who have “peacefully co-existed” with the airport’s neighbors for decades.
On March 3, the county released a draft of the ordinance saying it is an effort “to address community concerns regarding San Carlos Airport noise.”
Those concerns began after Surf Air, a startup airline whose passengers pay a monthly fee for unlimited flights, started using the San Carlos Airport in June 2013. Noise complaints about the airline’s turboprop planes have increased as the number of flights increased.
The county’s proposal would limit the hours and numbers of “noisy aircraft” rated at 74.5 decibels or louder that could land or take off from the airport.
The list of noisy aircraft includes the Pilatus PC-12s flown by Surf Air, but also 65 other planes.
The noisy aircraft would be banned from using the airport from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. During the hours from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., each operator of a noisy aircraft (such as Surf Air, a charter company, a flight school or a private individual) would be allowed only one takeoff and one landing in each time period.
As written, the restrictions would eliminate 81 flights a week from Surf Air’s current schedule.
Certain exceptions would apply, including for those working on certifications.
Ms. Ford said her group is “shocked by the proposed ordinance” and questions its legality. The airport association and others opposed to the curfew have pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling against a curfew imposed at an airport in East Hampton, New York.
San Mateo County’s proposal, however, seems to be designed to avoid the problems the East Hampton curfew has faced by exempting certain classes of aircraft, such as jets and helicopters, which are strictly regulated by federal law.
The ordinance exempts what are labeled “Stage 2, 3 and 4” aircraft. Federal regulations govern those classes of aircraft and prohibit more stringent local regulations.
Mike Callagy, San Mateo County’s assistant county manager, said the proposed curfew “is much more narrowly tailored to aircraft causing disturbances” than the South Hampton regulations.
Ms. Ford said that many at the airport hope an alternative route Surf Air used during a six-month trial period will be approved for permanent use by the Federal Aviation Administration. The route sent Surf Air over the Bay instead of the Peninsula for more than 60 percent of its flights during the trial.
But county officials say it could take 18 months, or longer, for the FAA to decide about the route. The route had drawn complaints from residents of Sunnyvale who said it increased the number of planes flying over their homes, but San Mateo County officials say most of those complaints were from people who did not live under the new flight path.
The Bay route also did not address noise complaints from those who live under Surf Air’s departure routes, including residents of San Carlos, Redwood Shores and North Fair Oaks.
The Bay route removed Surf Air’s planes from flying over “the handful of residents who have been complaining” much of the time, Ms. Ford said.
“If the Supervisors really believe that this very substantial improvement (of the Bay route) is still not enough to satisfy the individuals who are driving this issue, then the supervisors should be drafting an ordinance that does what they already admit they intend to do: target Surf Air,” she said in an email, acknowledging that such an ordinance would not be valid.
Ms. Ford said Surf Air is “the target of this ordinance” but the proposed regulations punish “airport users who have peacefully coexisted with the community for many years.”
She also suggested that a prerequisite to any changes is the completion of a recently started county noise study.
“The San Carlos Airport Association has always strived to be a good neighbor to our friends in the surrounding communities,” Ms. Ford said. “For almost 20 years we’ve peacefully coexisted, and as we heard at recent meetings of the Board of Supervisors, our neighbors have been friendly toward us.”
Ms. Ford suggested that the supervisors devote their energy and taxpayer funds to “engage the flying community to work together for alternate solutions.”
The county said the proposed ordinance and other possible ways to lessen noise complaints will probably be considered by the Board of Supervisors in July.
In the meantime, the county will meet with local residents and airport users as well as public officials from the affected communities to discuss the proposed curfew.
—
I am sure the airport was there long before those complaining neighbors bought their houses,
Some of theose earlier planes with radial engines made much more noise than todays planes.
“Peacefully coexisted”? How about those of us who have lived under the flight path of Surf Air for the past four years – with planes regularly flying so close to our property I can practically see the occupants and can’t carry out a conversation in the back yard?! I’m sorry…but a curfew is the right thing to do.
If the San Carlos Airport Association has any suggestions that would bring near term relief to vicinity residents, then I’m sure the supervisors will hear them out. If they are just interested in dispensing platitudes and stalling, then there is no point in additional discussion.
What new suggestions do they have now that hasn’t already been made?
And don’t blame the county if the SCAA finds this solution too onerous for their members. Blame the FAA. The county has tried every other less burdensome technique to bring relief to its residents. And every one has met with continued complaints. The FAA makes it impossible to fine tune these solutions. Well, the county has to turn to the more restrictive solution due to the FAA’s rulemaking process.
And while the airport was here before most of us have moved in, it doesn’t give plane operators the right to be a nuisance to its neighbors.
I have been to meetings on this issue and by far most people don’t have a problem with Cessnas. They’re only worried about Surf Air.
It’s too bad that the vast majority of pilots are responsible and considerate but that Surf Air is ruining it for everyone (people on the ground and – due to restrictions like those proposed – other pilots in the air).
For those of us in the landing path in redwood shores and Belmont (yes there is a piece of Belmont with homes on the east side of 101), Surf Air is the new nuisance. We knew when we moved in the airport was there. What has changed was the commercial operation of Surf Air that exceeds what our expectations of a municipal airport. In the past, the most intolerable noise was on the weekends due to private pilots. But I knew of this and lived with it.
With Surf Air, we have much more noise on the weekdays. It’s not fun being woken out of bed at 5:30am for loud flight landing or late at night taking off. Just remove the allowance of commercial flights. Send them to SFO or SJC. One thing we don’t hear about is what is the tax implications to San Carlos and San Mateo County that they get from having Surf Air here? Will the county want to give up that tax revenue in favor of pleasing residents?
“… The Bay route removed Surf Air’s planes from flying over “the handful of residents who have been complaining” much of the time, Ms. Ford said….”
Seriously? Ms Ford, in your world, does a ‘handful of residents’ = 1,062 people? That’s how many have signed the petition (https://goo.gl/x1vMZR), and it’s growing. And that’s backed up by the hundreds of residents that have attended community meetings on this topic.
Everything else you say is clearly biased and must be discounted as a result of such a ridiculously inaccurate statement like that. Alternative facts I suppose….
Yet another case of a single person being allowed to torture a vast number of residents on the Peninsula. Why is this allowed? Jeff Potter is making a fortune while the residents of the Peninsula suffer. All because certain selfish people can’t be bothered to adjust their schedules to the many flights already entering the Peninsula via SFO and SJC. The private jets are bad enough—-do we really need SurfAir in this community?
“Some of theose earlier planes with radial engines made much more noise than todays planes.”
How many homes do you believe were directly under the flight path of SQL when radial-engine airplanes were regularly using the airport? Circa 1917, if that helps.
Mark
FOR EASE- I am copying David’s comment as I completely agree with him…
“… The Bay route removed Surf Air’s planes from flying over “the handful of residents who have been complaining” much of the time, Ms. Ford said….”
Seriously? Ms Ford, in your world, does a ‘handful of residents’ = 1,062 people? That’s how many have signed the petition (https://www.change.org/p/surf-air-inc-stop-or-reroute-surf-air-flights-that-are-using-ksql-san-carlos-airport)and it’s growing. And that’s backed up by the hundreds of residents that have attended community meetings on this topic.
Everything else you say is clearly biased and must be discounted as a result of such a ridiculously inaccurate statement like that. Alternative facts I suppose…. ”
Ms. Ford has attended ALL the public community meetings AND attended many of the private meetings with our local team, Atherton Council, Surf Air, airport representatives and local supervisors…Ms. Ford is WILDLY AWARE of the entire anti-noise campaign…Surf Air from the get go mouthed: we want to work with the community- by working, it apparently means: doubling the amount of flights they initially proposed…it seems there are several Alternative Fact believers in this drama- Ms. Ford & Surf Air…
Carol Ford’s position is understandable given the SCAA’s mission statement begins, “Our mission is to promote and protect San Carlos Airport and its flight operations,” but the very first goal listed on http://www.sancarlosairport.org/who-we-are is, in full:
“Be a powerful advocate of San Carlos Airport by effectively promoting the Airport’s interests to local government agencies and the general public and by successfully addressing issues that could potentially threaten San Carlos Airport such as noise complaints and incompatible land use.”
While the second educational outreach topic on the page linked above is, “Noise Abatement Procedures.” Oddly, working with the general public and with airport operators to address recent noise complaints caused chiefly by Surf Air does not appear in the list of Recent Accomplishments. Perhaps the SCAA and Carol Ford should work more closely with airport neighbors on the noise issue and not diminish their concerns as belonging to “the handful of residents who have been complaining.”
Gwen:
yes a thousand people is a “handful” given there are hundreds of thousands of people that Surfair flies over that are NOT complaining.
Menlo Voter, a handful is the number of people that fly on Surf Air. 1000+ are the number of people that have signed a petition. 10,000’s are the number of people living in the flight path where the PC-12 is at an altitude that makes it louder than a 757. 50,000+ are the number of noise complaints filed.
It’s unfortunate that you and the other pilots on this forum have taken Carol Ford’s approach that “nothing can be done,” rather than put energies into working with the community to resolve this.
For every one person who signed the petition described in this this thread there are at least 10 more like me who are 1) greatly disturbed by SurfAir fights and 2) didn’t know about said petition or don’t sign such petitions. If you are under the SA flight path you hear Surf Air big time.
They fly over my house frequently. Doesn’t bother me.
Adam:
those 50,000 noise complaints were filed by less than 1000 people last time I checked. Hardly a mandate.
@ Menlo Voter, I think your math is off. A lot. So let’s see. That’s 1 (you) and Carol (makes 2!), and let’s throw Peter into that total (3) that think Surf is a good idea and needs to be tolerated. That’s about .28814% of those of you that do care vs those of us that don’t (1,063). Now if we extrapolated that math against the Peninsula population that they fly over….
Why don’t you bring your list of Surf supporters to this discussion? Otherwise your opinion (and math) is insignificant. And flawed. And annoying.
The reason you don’t bring your list: you don’t have one. Even if you bring your peninsula resident supporter list, your numbers would be insignificant.
Menlo Voter, you seem to believe that because the noise doesn’t bother you that it shouldn’t bother others. That’s OK, but perhaps there is a possibility that you are not representative of the major if the population. Just saying…
Menlo Voter, your response demonstrates exactly why you and other pilots will be upset with this. Other than pilots, do you think anyone in the community really cares about KSQL? You are the one in the minority compared to the rest of the community.
At what point will you realize that a single entity is forcing the county to impose a curfew that affects all airport users adversely?
After the curfew is imposed and Surf Air leaves San Carlos, do you realize the county will be forced to leave it in place to prevent any other similar operation from coming in?
Since you don’t consider the curfew legal, will your organization spend the millions of dollars necessary to litigate this issue over several years? If no one sues, it can’t be deemed illegal.
Maybe you win the court case, maybe you lose. Either way, do you realize your organization ruined its relationship with local public officials and the general public? They used to only hate Surf Air. Now, they hate the entire airport because you are all standing in solidarity together.
Please note how each new county proposal to fix the noise issue increases the inconvenience to your users. Do you think the county will stop until the noise problem stops?
In fact, if you continue your intransigence, I wouldn’t be surprised if the county never spent another dime on the airport and let it deteriorate in order to solve the problem. Don’t look to your state or federal representatives for money. You’ve made them mad as well.
You may win these short term battles with the FAA’s protection, but it’s going to cost you the war. At the end of this, the airport won’t have any friends.
The airport is supposed to be a partner and be a public service for the community, not the enemy. Don’t forget that! So be a good neighbor and your neighbors will be good to you. If one of your members causes a big problem for the community, make a real effort to fix the problem.
where’s peter:
my math isn’t off at all. There are tens of thousands if not hundreds that are overflown an affected by Surfair, yet they’re not complaining. Less than 1000 people file 50,000 complaints. So let’s see 1000 people file complaints vs tens to hundreds of thousands that don’t. Seems pretty clear to me that it is a small number of people that are bothered by Surfair vs a much larger number that are not.
Just because a large number of people aren’t coming on here to support Surfair is really meaningless. People are far more likely to post blogs and write letters to complain than they are to praise. Its human nature.
“Where is Peter”
I am still here.
I watch SurfAir fly by my house every day – 30 seconds per flight and no great irritation in my opinion.
I know how difficult it will be to get an FAA approved noise curfew.
I listen to 101 , leaf blowers and construction noise that bothers me far more than does SurfAir.
I have give my advice on this subject many times and feel no great urge to do so again.
@ Menlo Voter. Nope. The math doesn’t work that way. Clearly you still don’t get it. Ya gotta compare apples to apples:
Known Surf noise advocates: 3
Known Anti Surf Noise advocates: 1,069 (nice uptick since yesterday!)
See, that’s apples to apples. They are both KNOWN and measured data sets. Simple right?
Otherwise, I could say:
Surf Noise advocates: 3
Anti Surf Noise advocates: 1,069 + tens of thousands that have yet to complain = millions.
And that’s how Republican math works! It’s alternative math that a) showcases ignorance, or b) attempts to convince the masses that there is a valid case when in fact they are simply desperate to show support for an opinion. Key word, OPINION.
where’s peter:
known Surfair advocates = 3
complainers = 1000+
Those that haven’t complained 100,000 +
Its YOUR opinion that they are “yet to complain.”
Its my opinion that they would have complained by now if they were going to.
@ Menlo Voter,
<sigh> I give up.
You already did – “I’ve taken the liberty of including you in Menlo Voters Surf Noise Advocates group”
where’s peter:
<sigh> I give up as well.
My suggestion to Peter and MV is to but out.
You and the rest of us know if over 1,000 people take the time the energy and the guts to expose themselves on a public petition then there are probably another 50,000 that are bothered by the noise but won’t. Hundreds have taken the time to attend the meetings. Websites have been set up.
I know for a fact that when SA started flying into SQL the noise complaints at the airport went up 30 fold.
If as you say the train the highway and the leaf blowers bother you then why don’t you start a thread to complain.
This thread is about SQL and SA. So unless you have a vested interest in SA please go away.
Peter there’s still plenty of activity/ threads about schools and Fire Dept./ salaries. MV there are tons of threads to occupy your time. I hope you keep your promise and give up.
Go start a leaf blower thread or just go away.
“and punishes those who have “peacefully co-existed” with the airport’s neighbors for decades.
“The San Carlos Airport Association has always strived to be a good neighbor to our friends in the surrounding communities,” Ms. Ford said. “For almost 20 years we’ve peacefully coexisted, and as we heard at recent meetings of the Board of Supervisors, our neighbors have been friendly toward us.”
You’re right on both counts Ms. Ford and what’s changed over the last few decades?
Surf Air!!!!
This is not rocket science
Resident – Be aware that any topical discussion like this suffers from:
1 – Selection Bias wherein only people who are attracted to the topic participate
2 – Confirmation Bias wherein only positions that support the established “truth” are included
3 – Exclusion Bias wherein any person or idea that contradictions the groups strongly held beliefs are forced out.
If you can live with those three biases then enjoy this “discussion” but don’t expect it to accomplish much except making the participants feel better.
If instead you want a truly informed discussion of all perspectives which might actually lead to real solutions then you will have to look beyond this thread.
So, I complained to San Carlos Airport, then got an email telling me to complain to a different Agency at SFO. Most of us are buys and can’t be writing to every Government Agency on the Peninsula.
It’s absolutely SHOCKING that “turbo-prop” jets are allowed to fly over residential areas. Never should have been approved in the first place.
“It’s absolutely SHOCKING that “turbo-prop” jets are allowed to fly over residential areas. Never should have been approved in the first place.”
Such turboprops are the most reliable aircraft engines in service – far more reliable than reciprocating engines that usually power smaller aircraft.
The PT6A used in SurfAir’s planes is inherently smoother than large piston engines, simply because it has only about 10 moving parts, and they’re all moving in the same direction. A reciprocating aircraft engine has a complex system of at least 260 parts: rods, pistons, valves, lifters, camshafts, bearings, timing chains, belts, etc., many of them churning left, right, forward, back, up and down to produce power.
Tell them to use 5-bladed Hartzell propeller. MUCH quieter, would reduce complaints significantly. They already have 1 plane equipped with it, tell them to get / equip more.
“, tell them to get / equip more.”
They were told that a long time ago and all of their new planes have the five bladed props.
Retrofitting an existing plane would cost well over $1 million each.
This thread started as an update to an ongoing problem specific to a certain problem, SA
So We have 3 options here,
It bothers you
It doesn’t
or you have a vested interest either as a member or an investor
If SA doesn’t bother you why continue to chime in unless you like to hear yourself talk
If not let us know when anyone makes a comment if you have an interest in SA directly, then you should chime in, you are protecting your interest, I can appreciate that
You have left out another option – people who have information relative to the issue like on aircraft engines and five bladed props.
Unless of course you do not wish to be bothered with facts.
RE Questions for Carol Ford and Mark D.
Good Points- Carol seems to forget we have NEVER complained about the airport, we began this campaign 4 years ago when SA descended above us…Carol should think about working with us and maintaining the future of the airport without SA- none of this waste of time and energy would have transpired if the Supervisors hadn’t opened the door to benefit a few… ask Gretchen and the staff at the airport how much time they spend tracking the complaint calls- it is disruptive to many of us. No complaint with the airport, however, as one reader pointed out, it could disappear…and how would Carol feel then? I’m in this battle for the long haul, if it becomes a rally call to shut down the airport…I would rather it stays, but I’m all in if we need to pursue that route. Supervisors are elected officials…remember that at the next vote..
Given that the airport has accepted FAA Airport Improvement Grants it cannot be shut down for at least 18 years.
Given that the airport has accepted FAA Airport Improvement Grants it cannot discriminate against a single operator.
Noise curfews cannot survive a legal challenge unless those noise curfews have been approved by the FAA.
Therefore the County has very limited options and the County should make that clear to the understandably concerned residents.
The county doesn’t need to shut down the airport to get noise relief for residents. They just need to make life harder and harder for Surf Air and similar operators until the business model is untenable there.
Surf Air is a business. If the county adds regulations that increases its costs and/or passenger inconvenience, then Surf Air will have to leave.
All the county needs to do is turn up the pain level. This will be death by regulation.
I completely agree with Gwen, What a complete waste of time of County and Airport resources for what is inevitable.
I completely agree with questions, this thing is not going to go away and ironically they could be regulated out of business or forced to land somewhere else. This would be the least painful and most practical solution. May I suggest SFO,SJO, OAKL. Or the investors get tired of paying for very specialized, very expensive attorneys. Not good for PR also.
I actually partly agree w/ Peter,
” Given that the airport has accepted FAA Airport Improvement Grants it cannot be shut down for at least 18 years.”
This infers a complete airport shutdown, Closure.
18 years is a long time and several elections away, but after spring and summer get here the noise from us that complain could be louder than the Pilatus, It was a long wet winter but spring is upon us and I will be calling to complain when trying to use my yard while being buzzed by that damned Turboprop.
Personally I think SA will be gone sooner rather than later but if as Peter says it takes 18 years than it’s 18 years of complaining to the airport, the county and directly to Surf Air, You’d be surprised how fast 18 years goes by. I’ve done it three and a half times. Looking forward to my fourth.
The difference is if Peter is correct and it takes 18 miserable years of SA and the airport and the county, not to mention municipalities, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, San Carlos, Redwood Shores, manage to last that long well than at least we will have a d fixed ate to look forward to.
I can pretty much promise you the pressure will be on to not accept any more money from the FAA or any other agency that keeps control for a pittance of funds.
At that point the pressure will be enough not just to kick out SA but just to go ahead and close the airport.
Which by the way bothered very few people until SA showed up, Personally I would like to keep it but I think enough people will say thanks but no thanks We’re not taking a chance somebody screws up and lets the heavy hand of govt. back in.
The AIP contract signed by the County states:
“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.
b. In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or
privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or
Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Page 11 of 20
to engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the
airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to-
1) furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to
all users thereof, and
2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or
service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and
nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions
to volume purchasers.
c. Each fixed-based operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees,
rentals, and other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed-based
operators making the same or similar uses of such airport and utilizing the same
or similar facilities.
d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to use
any fixed-based operator that is authorized or permitted by the airport to serve any
air carrier at such airport.
e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, non-tenant, or subtenant
of another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and
substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and
other charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to
providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air carriers which make
similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable
classifications such as tenants or non-tenants and signatory carriers and nonsignatory
carriers. Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be
unreasonably withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations
substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such classification
or status.
f. It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any
person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any
services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to
maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform.
g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges referred to
in this assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditions as
would apply to the furnishing of such services by commercial aeronautical service
providers authorized by the sponsor under these provisions.
h. The sponsor may establish such 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.
i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical
use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or
necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.”
Anything that targets SurfAir would be prohibited by the County’s contract with the FAA.
Yep, every airport user’s life must be made miserable to solve this problem. Those are the rules. The county is merely complying with what the FAA is forcing them to do.
If airport users don’t like it, complain to the FAA.
Peter,
I’m going by what you said. 18 years statutorily but practically it will get run down and close much sooner.
“Given that the airport has accepted FAA Airport Improvement Grants it cannot be shut down for at least 18 years”
But as you know things don’t just roll along same as always for those 18 years.
It’s a progression, In a few years maybe 5, operators, clubs, property and aircraft maintenance companies, fuel service companies, vendors, tower upgrades, etc. start to see the writing on the wall and stop or slow down upgrades.
During the next 5 years you start to see a physical deterioration. On site businesses start thinking about moving or closing down. Banks and other sources of loans and financing knowing there’s only a short time left stop lending. Airplane owners start thinking about beating the rush and start looking for other places to tie down or hanger.
The airport starts to lose money, The county has to make up the difference but the citizens fight it. No sense throwing money down a rabbit hole. The county was counting on that FAA money but the residents would just as soon and will look forward to not taking the money and soon enough the FAA says the airport is not being kept up to standards. It may take a few years but time flies finally the hotels, condos and office buildings start going up. The stories will be told about how we used to have an airport over there once where that big apt. complex now sits. And you used to be able to learn to fly a plane right there but the powers that be decided to let the citizens suffer and there goes the airport. Maybe they’ll keep the museum.
or in an alternate world compromises could have been made and limitations made to keep it a municipal airport and 20 years from now it’s still a public functioning airport, where jobs are had, clubs fly, and your grandkids can still learn to fly,
Oh well,,,,,,time flies and progress is made.
.
@Peter
The 5 Blade Hartzell Prop only costs $84,000 (minus trade-in) NOT the Million you wrote. The whole airplane only costs $3 Million+ and a new engine with propeller costs under $1 Million.
I owned Pilatus N325MW and I can assure you that they are WAY WAY quieter than a King Air or similar twin turbine (Conquest, Cheyenne).
Roy Thiele-Sardina
ASEL, AMEL, Instrument Rated
http://hartzellprop.com/hartzell-5-blade-carbon-fiber-propeller-available-for-finnoff-aviation-pilatus-pc-12-engine-upgrade/
Roy – thanks for the factual correction.
Noise level with the 5 bladed prop is 72.7 dBA instead of 76 dBA with the standard propeller.
Given that the dBa scale is logarithmic that is a big reduction in sound level.
A 3.3dB reduction is less than half the noise level as 76dBA is if I remember my math correctly.
Another view of increased business air travel:
“The Hayward Executive Airport on Tuesday celebrated an expansion project that will help it accommodate the increasing demand for air travel to and from the Bay Area.
The expansion comes in the form of a new operation from APP Jet Center, an aviation company that manages airport real estate and offers support services like fueling, hangaring and parking for jet and airplane owners and operators.
“The Hayward airport is such an asset to our community,” said Hayward City Manager Kelly McAdoo. “We’re lucky to have it and lucky to have great tenants who invest in it. … Hayward, as a result, will continue to prioritize it.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/15/hayward-airport-expands-operations-as-bay-area-business-travel-booms/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=gmsv&utm_medium=email
To make a noise complaint, weather for Surf Air or anyone else flying into San Carlos,
Google San Carlos Air[port
go to Public Works,
Scroll down on the bar on the left for airport noise, It will send you to a fill in the blank form,
Fill in then click submit
If you google San Carlos Airport noise complaint it takes you to an SFO complaint site,
I question this because why would you have to figure out to go through Public Works, My guess is the airport doesn’t want to take all the complaints and is misdirecting people.
Please continue to complain if you are bothered,
We will now hear from the few but vocal group trying to tell us we should not complain because it does not bother them and leaf blowers are louder.
Make your voice heard, but go to the right site,
Peter,
whats your point?
I don’t think anyone is for expanding SQL?
Doug, just so I understand, A pilatus pc-12, with a 5 blade propeller in flight is half as a loud as the same plane but operating with a 4 blade prop?
Doesn’t seem right.
“Doug, just so I understand, A pilatus pc-12, with a 5 blade propeller in flight is half as a loud as the same plane but operating with a 4 blade prop?
Doesn’t seem right.”
Because you don’t understand the decibel scale is logarithmic. It’s not linear.
http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Log_Calculator.htm
The tip speed on the blades of a 5 bladed prop are lower than the tip speeds of the longer blades on a 4 bladed prop when producing the same amount of thrust.
Propeller noise increases with increased tip speeds and particularly if the tip speeds approach the speed of sound.
If SA could reduce the noise of the plane by half and spread their flights laterally that would greatly reduce the number of complaints but I counted between 15-18 flights directly over Ameby today,
So much for lateral spread.
I know some of the planes now fly with 5 blade props but have not noticed much if any reduction in noise level.
Even though the prop noise could be halved, isn’t there other noise from the plane flying through the air? I.e., engine combustion/exhaust, aerodynamic drag of the whole plane? How much do those contribute to the noise? Are these the only other noise producing variables?
From Wikipedia:
“Mechanisms of sound production[edit]
Small general aviation aircraft produce localized aircraft noise.
Helicopter main and tail rotors produce aerodynamic noise.
A moving aircraft including the jet engine or propeller causes compression and rarefaction of the air, producing motion of air molecules. This movement propagates through the air as pressure waves. If these pressure waves are strong enough and within the audible frequency spectrum, a sensation of hearing is produced. Different aircraft types have different noise levels and frequencies. The noise originates from three main sources:
Aerodynamic noise
Engine and other mechanical noise
Noise from aircraft systems
Aerodynamic noise[edit]
Aerodynamic noise arises from the airflow around the aircraft fuselage and control surfaces. This type of noise increases with aircraft speed and also at low altitudes due to the density of the air. Jet-powered aircraft create intense noise from aerodynamics. Low-flying, high-speed military aircraft produce especially loud aerodynamic noise.
The shape of the nose, windshield or canopy of an aircraft affects the sound produced. Much of the noise of a propeller aircraft is of aerodynamic origin due to the flow of air around the blades. The helicopter main and tail rotors also give rise to aerodynamic noise. This type of aerodynamic noise is mostly low frequency determined by the rotor speed.
Typically noise is generated when flow passes an object on the aircraft, for example the wings or landing gear. There are broadly two main types of airframe noise:
Bluff Body Noise – the alternating vortex shedding from either side of a bluff body, creates low pressure regions (at the core of the shed vortices) which manifest themselves as pressure waves (or sound). The separated flow around the bluff body is quite unstable, and the flow “rolls up” into ring vortices—which later break down into turbulence.[1]
Edge Noise – when turbulent flow passes the end of an object, or gaps in a structure (high lift device clearance gaps) the associated fluctuations in pressure are heard as the sound propagates from the edge of the object (radially downwards).[1]
Engine and other mechanical noise[edit]
Much of the noise in propeller aircraft comes equally from the propellers and aerodynamics. Helicopter noise is aerodynamically induced noise from the main and tail rotors and mechanically induced noise from the main gearbox and various transmission chains. The mechanical sources produce narrow band high intensity peaks relating to the rotational speed and movement of the moving parts. In computer modelling terms noise from a moving aircraft can be treated as a line source.
Aircraft gas turbine engines (jet engines) are responsible for much of the aircraft noise during takeoff and climb, such as the buzzsaw noise generated when the tips of the fan blades reach supersonic speeds. However, with advances in noise reduction technologies—the airframe is typically more noisy during landing.[citation needed]
The majority of engine noise is due to jet noise—although high bypass-ratio turbofans do have considerable fan noise. The high velocity jet leaving the back of the engine has an inherent shear layer instability (if not thick enough) and rolls up into ring vortices. This later breaks down into turbulence. The SPL associated with engine noise is proportional to the jet speed (to a high power) therefore, even modest reductions in exhaust velocity will produce a large reduction in Jet Noise.[citation needed]
Noise from aircraft systems[edit]
Cockpit and cabin pressurization and conditioning systems are often a major contributor within cabins of both civilian and military aircraft. However, one of the most significant sources of cabin noise from commercial jet aircraft, other than the engines, is the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), an on‑board generator used in aircraft to start the main engines, usually with compressed air, and to provide electrical power while the aircraft is on the ground. Other internal aircraft systems can also contribute, such as specialized electronic equipment in some military aircraft.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_noise
In my opinion the majority of the PC-12 noise while one of them is approaching to land is propellor noise. After the landing gear and flaps are extended these then are the second largest noise contributor. The PC-12 has a very aerodynamically clean fuselage and wings and those make a much smaller noise contribution at landing approach speeds.
So a 3.3 db reduction is just that,
3.3/76=.04342105% less noise w/ a 5 blade prop?
“3.3/76=.04342105% less noise w/ a 5 blade prop?”
No, the Db scale is logarithmic.
“the logarithmic decibel scale goes up in powers of ten: every increase of 10dB on the scale is equivalent to a 10-fold increase in sound intensity (which broadly corresponds with a doubling in loudness)”
It works in reverse too, so a 3.3 Db decrease is about a 30% decrease in noise level.
Here is a well written primer on aircraft noise and aircraft noise abatement ( first attachment to these minutes):
file:///Users/petercarpenter/Downloads/012711aab_minutes.pdf