FAA vows to take fresh look at flight paths, altitudes

This issue should be on the radar of the Menlo Park City Council. The noise problem is not limited to Palo Alto - residents of Menlo Park east of El Camino are impacted as well. Any solution proposed by the FAA should not just shift the burden to another community but should be equitable to all neighborhoods.

Raising the minimum elevation at the MENLO waypoint to 5'000 (FAA's proposal) will do little. I have been tracking noisy flights for about a month: the average elevation above my house (about a mile from the waypoint) is about 4,500' and the noise is loud enough to disrupt conversation with the windows closed. Also it is the sheer number of flights that is the problem rather than the individual noise level: during peak periods, every 3 or 4 minutes.

Mandating airfoils on Airbus 320 jets would be a helpful step (see SkyPosse website for details)- that would at least reduce the high whine that sets one's teeth on edge. But FAA may not have the jurisdiction to demand that step.

"the noise is loud enough to disrupt conversation with the windows closed"

Uh, that's odd; when we go for our evening constitutional, I don't notice much different than the past - no "whining", no disrupted conversation. And we don't even bring "closed windows" on our walk!

This is where you lose me. [Part removed. Please make your point without negative characterization of other comments.]

Weeping Willows. How fortunate for you that the roar of frequent flights do not unduly disturb you. However, please be considerate enough to understand that the noise does indeed negatively impact thousands of other people and therefore should not be cavalierly dismissed.

I hope the FAA moves quickly to significantly reduce the noise and to end the narrow corridor that is concentrating the flight noise. Nevertheless, the agreement by the FAA to consider the issue should not lesson the efforts of our communities to restore our skies to a semblance of tranquility.

Thank you to Anna Eshoo for her efforts.

Frank - the portion deleted was constructive advice about not exaggerating the reality, or overuse of hyperbole, as in "loud enough to disrupt conversation with the windows closed"

Whereas "restore our skies to a semblance of tranquility" is wishful thinking, wanting to go back to pre-SFO and San Carlos days. While more elegantly written, it is certainly less quantifiable.

Raising the crossing altitide for the MENLO intersection from 4000 ft to 5000 ft would, given the inverse square law for sound transmission, have a significant impact on the ground noise level from any one individual flight.

The FAA study fails to adequately consider how NextGen technology could be used to more evenly distribute the inbound SFO flights over a broader geographical area.

Frank:

Surfair flights (the noisiest of the lot) routinely pass directly over my house. Usually at about 1200'. When we're inside we don't usually hear anything. When outside is certainly isn't close to "disrupting conversation." And since it's outside there are no "closed windows" to interfere with what little noise there is. Sorry, but as weeping willows? has pointed out, your statement is hyperbolic.

It amuses me how snarky commenters can get when a post conflicts with their own experience. Nevertheless, for those of you who care about the impact of living under the new SFO approach path, I recommend a website that automates noise complaints to SFO: stop.jetnoise.net. It provides real-time identification of overflights,the model of jet, altitude and descent rate AND reports each of your observations to SFO for inclusion in their required monthly report.

What is the motivation for people who are not bothered by the noise to criticize people who want to reduce the noise? How does reducing or eliminating the noise negatively impact them? Perhaps they are investors in Surf Air . . .

No one is suggesting reducing the total number of flights to and from SFO, so the economic benefits of the increased number of flights is not an issue.

Sigh. I expect there will be the usual snarky comments from 'the noise doesn't bother me' commenters.

"Perhaps they are investors in Surf Air . . . "

Oh, yeah, little drone workers at Anthem and other VC's are hired specifically to post on the Almanac! That's part of the attitude that drives normal folk crazy! Talk about snark!

I can only speak for me - what gets me is the over-the-top exaggeration and the selfish NINBY-ism in the related threads.

- hyperbole, as in "loud enough to disrupt conversation with the windows closed"

- NIMBY-ism, as in 'hey, let's move the flight paths elsewhere!'

So, shall we talk about your perception of snark? Or the red-herring you lay out about investors?!?

Want to get serious?

Lose the 3 tactics shown i almost every thread (gross hyperbole, NIMBY and red-herring,) and maybe there's room to get all of us on the same page and look for solutions.

Lastly: get your team on the same page - there IS a difference between discussion on San Carlos/Surfair, and SFO. Suggest you have a website and an FAQ educating folks on the discussion.

My $.02

Weeping Willows?:

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post.

"What is the motivation for people who are not bothered by the noise to criticize people who want to reduce the noise? "

Disagreeing with your description of the probelm and most particularly with you definition of the solution is NOT criticizing you but rather taking issue with your statement of the problem and your proiposed solution.

Others do not have to give you a "safe space" wherein you are allowed to define the problem and proscribe the solution without having both intelligent debate and disagreement.