Atherton residents have been asking the FAA to change Surfair's route for over three years, and nothing happens until the Surfair asks the FAA to change the route, then by some magical process, that happens behind closed doors, the route gets changed.

Then the FAA and the airline try to tell the residents "move along folks, nothing to see here".

Atherton City Councilman Mike Lempres demonstrates a clear understanding of the danger of the FAA's opaque process when he laments: "They continue to have a process that does not involve the residents".

Aviation works like an old-boys club. If you are Jim Sullivan or Gretchen Kelly, you are part of the FAA's club, and you get access, and action... if not, you just get excuses.

Surfair's approach route may be fixed (we'll see), but the FAA's process is still broken.

The aviation club has great perks, if you can afford the membership fees. GA airports are a nice soft point of entry for all sorts of lucrative contraband. Definitely not a good idea to have a bunch of residents and local politicians poking around the operation.

tosh:

I'll bet lot's of the Surfair passengers are smuggling contraband. Riiiiiight. @@

These comments are hilarious. SurfAir is under zero obligation to do anything. They don't set the flight paths. Despite that, they managed to work out a solution that's exactly what people were whining for... and it's still not good enough!

Just proves what I've said all along: it's not about airplane noise, it's about a misguided and completely wrong assumption that SurfAir customers are super rich interlopers.

Competely bogus.

Matt,

Thanks for helping me make my point. The residents of Atherton have been told for close to three years now that neither SurfAir, SCL Airport management, or the TRACON in Sacramento has the ability to set the flight paths. So, how were SurfAir VP Sullivan, Airport manager Kelly, and the Sacramento TRACON able to "work out" a solution?

" The residents of Atherton have been told for close to three years now that neither SurfAir, SCL Airport management, or the TRACON in Sacramento has the ability to set the flight paths."

Wrong - It has been consistently pointed out that the County had zero ability to fix this problem and that the only solution for different flight paths in VFR conditions was to work with, guess who, SurfAir. And then SurfAir would coordinate what it proposed to do with the FAA.

That is EXACTLY what happened regardless of all the people rushing on board to take credit for what SurfAir has done.

Amazing. Surfair does exactly what they've been asked to, yet still folks criticize. Tells me it's not really about noise at all.

Jetman: The folks you mention DON'T have the ability to set flight paths. They never did. That hasn't changed. Only the FAA can do that and only the FAA did it in this case. You can thank Surfair for asking the FAA to make the change. You're welcome.

Peter,

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right:

"...the County had zero ability to fix this problem and that the only solution for different flight paths in VFR conditions was to work with, guess who, SurfAir. And then SurfAir would coordinate what it proposed to do with the FAA."

Please explain why San Mateo County, which owns and operates the the airport, and represents the people of San Mateo County, needs to work through a small, and almost insignificant private commercial airline like SurfAir, in order to work with an agency of the federal government?

Because under VFR conditions in the Bay Area SurfAir is operating in controlled airspace and its movements are therefore controlled by FAA rules not by County rules.

SurfAir devised a VFR flight path that has minimal interference with PAO traffic and which minimizes its low altitude flight time over populated areas.

The FAA reviewed SurfAir's and concurred with SurfAir that this was a workable flight path.

The County had nothing to do with this except trying to gain credit for what SurfAir had done.

The FAA is a federal entity. San Carlos Airport accepts federal funds to support its operations. Therefore it must abide by the FAA / Federal rules. FAA says it's concern is safety and not noise / pollution. It does appear there is some progress taking shape from the article. For the sake of residential quality of life and protection I welcome who is helping. I do like Jetman and agree FAA does not seem neighborhood friendly per se.

Update - Today (5/16/16) the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for the City of Santa Monica and against the Federal Aviation Administration in the City's lawsuit to establish its right to control use of the land now occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.


"Santa Monica Airport: One Step Closer to Local Control"
AIReform ~ May 17, 2016 Web Link

The court decision only allows the case to go to trial - it does not rule on the merits of the case.

Surf air still flying low over west Menlo towards Atherton on final San Carlos approach May 30 @ 6:00pm
They aren't trying very hard to re route over Moffett....of course SM Supervisors don't care when it's 3 day weekend...

Is this a required flight path as Ameba was?

Is it set up for a flight path on IFR days?

We're still getting over flights on Ameba, same as before, albeit less,

It will be interesting when they double their inbound flights, How many will be over Ameba and how many over the bay approach?

resident:

it's the AMEBY approach and they must fly AMEBY in IFR weather. In my experience overflights have decreased. That tells me they are flying the alternate approved approach. They will not be able to fly that approach in IFR conditions.