News

FAA vows to take fresh look at flight paths, altitudes

Federal agency responds to flurry of Bay Area complaints about airplane noise

Responding to a rising volume of complaints about airplane noise, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has agreed to take a fresh look at flight paths, plane altitudes and new procedures that would bring some peace to the afflicted skies above San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties.

In a letter prepared for U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr and Jackie Speier, the federal agency has announced a new three-phased initiative that will explore a variety of possible modifications to flight speeds, altitudes and waypoint locations.

After a preliminary feasibility study in the first phase, the administration would then spend the second phase further studying any amendments and procedures "determined to be initially feasible, flyable, and operationally acceptable from a safety point of view," according to an FAA report released Monday by the three House members. In the third phase, the FAA would formally implement the revised procedures and make whatever airspace changes are deemed appropriate.

The FAA announced its initiative at a time when the number of complaints about airplane noise is skyrocketing and new citizen groups devoted to the topic are sprouting up to lobby change and, in some cases, take legal action.

For many, the problem was exacerbated by Next Generation Air Transportation System (commonly known as NextGen), an effort that the FAA began to roll out last year that standardized travel lanes for aircraft and, in doing so, required planes to share a more narrow band of airspace.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The change was particularly acute for Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Woodside, Santa Cruz and other communities that are located within the flight paths. In Palo Alto alone, the number of complaints shot up from 60 in June 2014 to 2,733 in June 2015, according to a resolution the City Council passed in August. And in Portola Valley and Woodside, hundreds of residents signed a petition last year complaining about the rising decibel levels.

In August, there were 8,770 complaints from Palo Alto, 12,967 from Santa Cruz and 15,562 from Los Gatos and 2,440 from Portola Valley, according to a report from the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office.

A group, led by Portola Valley resident Dr. Tina Nguyen and Woodside resident Jim Lyons, has filed a petition challenging the FAA's analysis of the new flight plan and its impacts. Both Palo Alto and Portola Valley have also hired consultants to further analyze the airplane noise levels and consider mitigations.

Other communities, including Santa Cruz and Los Gatos, have also reported growing noise levels. The resolution adopted by Palo Alto City Council in August notes that the number of complaints from Los Gatos and Summit/Skyline increased from zero in January and February 2015 to 3,553 in June 2015.

The FAA's new initiative doesn't guarantee any changes, though it does commit the agency to further studying its flight procedures and to coordinating its findings with local stakeholders. During the second phase of the initiative, the FAA will "conduct the formal environmental and safety reviews, coordinate and seek feedback from existing and/or new community roundtables, members of affected industry, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) before moving forward with the formal amendment process."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

According to the FAA's timetable, some of these analyses had already been launched in early October. This includes the analysis of raising the allowed altitude at several Bay Area flight paths, including the "MENLO" waypoint in the Menlo Park and Palo Alto area. The analysis will look at raising the altitude at this waypoint to 5,000 feet, the altitude to which the FAA had previously committed in 2000. Since the launch of NextGen, residents have complained that the altitudes in the area have fallen to between 3,500 and 4,000 feet.

As part of this initiative, the FAA will also consider moving speed adjustments to over water, rather than land; consider changes to air-traffic operations and the potential for using more "fly-friendly" runways to reduce concerns in certain locations, according to the FAA. The agency has also committed to hold community forums to engage the community about the ongoing effort to curb the noise level.

"Addressing noise concerns in a densely populated and operationally complex area like Northern California is best done in a forum (such as existing and/or new roundtables) that includes community leaders and is supported by the FAA and Bay Area Airports," the FAA report states.

Though the outcome is yet to be determined, the three California representatives lauded the FAA's action to address the complaints. In a joint press release, Eshoo called the FAA plan an "important first step."

"The FAA leadership will follow with community meetings, coordinated through our offices, to explain in detail the FAA's plan to address the noise problem being experienced in our regions," Eshoo said.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Farr also characterized the FAA initiative as a good first step and cited is as evidence that the FAA "is willing to consider the changes proposed by the community."

"For months, the commercial aircraft noise in Santa Cruz and the surrounding area has been terrible," Farr said. "From the beginning, I have told the FAA that they created this mess so it is up to them to fix it."

The initiative, he said in the statement, shows that "everyone is committed to developing some real solutions."

"I hope the FAA will continue to listen to the communities it serves and work with them to solve any problems that arise from the switch to the NextGen flight plan," he said.

Speier, whose district encompasses portions of San Francisco and San Mateo County, called that the FAA initiative a "compilation of ideas that were offered by the public regarding SFO and the FAA's recent meetings in our three congressional districts, as well as requests made by the SFO Airport Community Roundtable." Some of these ideas, she said, may be "deemed workable by the FAA and some may not."

"However, having previously been resistant to taking community suggestions, the FAA, for the first time in many years, has committed to studying ideas submitted by the affected communities," Speier said in a statement. "I am gratified that the FAA is rolling up its sleeves to come up with solutions. The health of those who live under constant bombardment of airplane noise is being seriously compromised and the FAA has a responsibility to take action to address it."

Related content:

Two new bills aim to lower volume on airplane noise

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

FAA vows to take fresh look at flight paths, altitudes

Federal agency responds to flurry of Bay Area complaints about airplane noise

Responding to a rising volume of complaints about airplane noise, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has agreed to take a fresh look at flight paths, plane altitudes and new procedures that would bring some peace to the afflicted skies above San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties.

In a letter prepared for U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr and Jackie Speier, the federal agency has announced a new three-phased initiative that will explore a variety of possible modifications to flight speeds, altitudes and waypoint locations.

After a preliminary feasibility study in the first phase, the administration would then spend the second phase further studying any amendments and procedures "determined to be initially feasible, flyable, and operationally acceptable from a safety point of view," according to an FAA report released Monday by the three House members. In the third phase, the FAA would formally implement the revised procedures and make whatever airspace changes are deemed appropriate.

The FAA announced its initiative at a time when the number of complaints about airplane noise is skyrocketing and new citizen groups devoted to the topic are sprouting up to lobby change and, in some cases, take legal action.

For many, the problem was exacerbated by Next Generation Air Transportation System (commonly known as NextGen), an effort that the FAA began to roll out last year that standardized travel lanes for aircraft and, in doing so, required planes to share a more narrow band of airspace.

The change was particularly acute for Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Woodside, Santa Cruz and other communities that are located within the flight paths. In Palo Alto alone, the number of complaints shot up from 60 in June 2014 to 2,733 in June 2015, according to a resolution the City Council passed in August. And in Portola Valley and Woodside, hundreds of residents signed a petition last year complaining about the rising decibel levels.

In August, there were 8,770 complaints from Palo Alto, 12,967 from Santa Cruz and 15,562 from Los Gatos and 2,440 from Portola Valley, according to a report from the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office.

A group, led by Portola Valley resident Dr. Tina Nguyen and Woodside resident Jim Lyons, has filed a petition challenging the FAA's analysis of the new flight plan and its impacts. Both Palo Alto and Portola Valley have also hired consultants to further analyze the airplane noise levels and consider mitigations.

Other communities, including Santa Cruz and Los Gatos, have also reported growing noise levels. The resolution adopted by Palo Alto City Council in August notes that the number of complaints from Los Gatos and Summit/Skyline increased from zero in January and February 2015 to 3,553 in June 2015.

The FAA's new initiative doesn't guarantee any changes, though it does commit the agency to further studying its flight procedures and to coordinating its findings with local stakeholders. During the second phase of the initiative, the FAA will "conduct the formal environmental and safety reviews, coordinate and seek feedback from existing and/or new community roundtables, members of affected industry, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) before moving forward with the formal amendment process."

According to the FAA's timetable, some of these analyses had already been launched in early October. This includes the analysis of raising the allowed altitude at several Bay Area flight paths, including the "MENLO" waypoint in the Menlo Park and Palo Alto area. The analysis will look at raising the altitude at this waypoint to 5,000 feet, the altitude to which the FAA had previously committed in 2000. Since the launch of NextGen, residents have complained that the altitudes in the area have fallen to between 3,500 and 4,000 feet.

As part of this initiative, the FAA will also consider moving speed adjustments to over water, rather than land; consider changes to air-traffic operations and the potential for using more "fly-friendly" runways to reduce concerns in certain locations, according to the FAA. The agency has also committed to hold community forums to engage the community about the ongoing effort to curb the noise level.

"Addressing noise concerns in a densely populated and operationally complex area like Northern California is best done in a forum (such as existing and/or new roundtables) that includes community leaders and is supported by the FAA and Bay Area Airports," the FAA report states.

Though the outcome is yet to be determined, the three California representatives lauded the FAA's action to address the complaints. In a joint press release, Eshoo called the FAA plan an "important first step."

"The FAA leadership will follow with community meetings, coordinated through our offices, to explain in detail the FAA's plan to address the noise problem being experienced in our regions," Eshoo said.

Farr also characterized the FAA initiative as a good first step and cited is as evidence that the FAA "is willing to consider the changes proposed by the community."

"For months, the commercial aircraft noise in Santa Cruz and the surrounding area has been terrible," Farr said. "From the beginning, I have told the FAA that they created this mess so it is up to them to fix it."

The initiative, he said in the statement, shows that "everyone is committed to developing some real solutions."

"I hope the FAA will continue to listen to the communities it serves and work with them to solve any problems that arise from the switch to the NextGen flight plan," he said.

Speier, whose district encompasses portions of San Francisco and San Mateo County, called that the FAA initiative a "compilation of ideas that were offered by the public regarding SFO and the FAA's recent meetings in our three congressional districts, as well as requests made by the SFO Airport Community Roundtable." Some of these ideas, she said, may be "deemed workable by the FAA and some may not."

"However, having previously been resistant to taking community suggestions, the FAA, for the first time in many years, has committed to studying ideas submitted by the affected communities," Speier said in a statement. "I am gratified that the FAA is rolling up its sleeves to come up with solutions. The health of those who live under constant bombardment of airplane noise is being seriously compromised and the FAA has a responsibility to take action to address it."

Related content:

Two new bills aim to lower volume on airplane noise

Comments

PH
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:07 pm
PH, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:07 pm

Once all the people who complain about the noise get their way it will be impossible to land aircraft at our airports. These people don't want trucks to drive through their cities or to have people who are less fortunate around. They want all the goods and services to be there magically and never have to be bothered by noise and people they don't want except when they are supplying those things. If they get their way, pilots who are already busy will have to increase their approach and departure procedures to a point that might be bordering on unsafe operations. Aircraft don't operate on wishes. They need to be operated within parameters that are safe. They can't shoot silently into the sky like a rocket and return silently like a badminton shuttlecock, dropping on to the airport without a sound. This is not a new issue. The people who complain might be new to it though. It also looks to me like the media is making Surf Air their scapegoat. There are lots of more important issues that need our attention. Couldn't people find issues to have addressed by our government that are really important instead of wasting so much time on this one. You moved to where the planes are people. Do you really think it is right to start complaining when you knew what you were getting all along? If you say you didn't know then shame on you for not doing the research first.


Matt
Gemello
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Matt, Gemello
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:35 pm

@PH: While the general presence of planes in this area is not a new issue, the current flight path as well as the amount of noise affecting the more densely populated areas is new and has caused a significant amount of grief recently. You can find more background information by just googling "new SFO flight path".

Also, googling "noise-related deaths" will point you to studies explaining the relationship between noise and serious health consequences. This is an important issue that is important enough to petition the government.


Ken
Monta Loma
on Nov 18, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Ken, Monta Loma
on Nov 18, 2015 at 4:05 pm

Personally, I barely notice the planes and am not bothered by that at all. What drives me nuts are the trains and their whistles, particularly the freight trains that come through every evening around 9pm. They are so much louder and disruptive (and unnecessarily long) than the planes are. Even when I lived in Sunnyvale under the approach to Moffett, and I'd have to pause the tv while the C-130s went overhead, I found this less annoying than the trains. Now, maybe it was because I didn't have kids then, and it's the train noises that wake my son up, but come on. As I understand it there is a protocol of blasts, as well as a supposed decibel limit for those horns, but I think many are going way over. What do I do about that?


Den
Old Mountain View
on Nov 19, 2015 at 9:33 am
Den, Old Mountain View
on Nov 19, 2015 at 9:33 am

Couldn't agree more on the trains. The duration and volume of the horn change is excessive and extremely disruptive in the evenings.

Occasionally the military planes shake the home to a level to which you feel you are about to be bombed. It is kinda cool although startling but at least it is in the middle of the day.


Plane to see
Monta Loma
on Nov 19, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Plane to see, Monta Loma
on Nov 19, 2015 at 5:20 pm

Wholeheartedly agree with Matt, planes aren't new but the new flight path is definitely much louder. And it's not just one or two, it's multiple flights within minutes of each other, over and over and over.


PH
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 20, 2015 at 3:09 pm
PH, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 20, 2015 at 3:09 pm

It is louder now than a little while back, but it was lots worse years ago. The FAA implemented quieter approach procedures, but then NextGen comes along and makes it noisier again. People complain in cities like Mtn. View and Palo Alto where they are miles from the large airports. What do you think it is like for those in San Jose who are right under the approach or departure paths of most of the traffic? I haven't seen them written about. It is a modern world and we are choosing to live where there is noise. No one forces us to live here and we have lots of worse health issues than the aircraft noise in this area. The sirens, trains, idiots driving badly, garbage trucks and leaf blowers are more irritating than the aircraft. I do not believe our health is in grave danger from the aircraft noise, but if I lived a mile off the end of the runways 30 at San Jose I'm sure it could lead to problems. The papers need to write stories that show us the facts and not the complaints of a few people. They don't do anyone service by just telling us we have noise sensitive people around here. Most of us don't care, but we do have a choice and that is to live somewhere else if we aren't happy here. Remember: The airports were here first and any reasonable person should feel that things are going to get busier and air traffic as we know it is only going to increase. We would have more of it but there isn't enough concrete to handle more planes. I'm lucky to be able to leave this area soon, but I will miss the airplanes that I have always been fascinated by. As far as health goes, the rent and traffic and crime is more stressful to me. I wish everyone well and hope you all find a good solution for each of you.


Mt. View Neighbor
Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Mt. View Neighbor, Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm

Moffett airfield was completely shut down in 1993. In the late 1990s, FedX tried to get in, but the city voted them down because it would have added massive amounts of noise.

Also, in the 1980s regulations were implemented requiring cities to relocate people living in homes with air traffic above certain levels. If the air traffic is above a certain level, the cities are required to relocate the people in homes above required levels.

No one in Mountain View was given a vote that I know of on this traffic. I'm wondering how it was implemented without resident approval.


The FAA is the problem here
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:10 pm
The FAA is the problem here, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:10 pm

There have been numerous threads/conversations regarding aircraft noise on the Palo Alto online forums in recent months. The FAA's rollout of NextGen is the problem here folks, and it isn't even fully rolled out in the bay area, yet. I am reposting some of the main reference links for those who would like to learn more about NextGen.

Sky Posse Website has a wealth of information, including a detailed explanation of NextGen (with links) a reference library, links to flight trackers for the three bay area international airports as well as a link for a worldwide view of flight traffic.

Imho, San Jose Webtrak5 link gives the best data of *real time (*10 minute delay) air traffic over Mountain View - including carrier, arriving/departing, airport, altitude and visual as it the plane flies overhead with a grid map of the streets below. You can simply click on the plane at the point on the map where it was causing the noise disturbance, and a box will appear and you can file a noise complaint.

Link to SkyPossee

Web Link



Here is a video of an Arizona congressman discussing the problems the rollout of NextGen rollout has caused for Phoenix area residents, and the FAA's violation of the law in NextGen's implementation.

Web Link



Another news story about the impact NextGen has had on Phoenix area residents. (Incidentally, Phoenix was one of the first cities to be blessed with NextGen and it's resulting negative impacts on residents.

Web Link



And here is what the website Aviation Impact Reform has to say about NextGen present day vs NextGen as proposed/sold in 2004.

Web Link




This list is for those who have found it difficult to locate the phone numbers to call and complain about airplane noise. You can use these numbers to call regularly. Some of the complaint lines count each call and some count the same person just one time each month.

SFO Airport complaint line: 877-206-8290
Palo Alto Airport: 650 329-2405
San Jose Airport: 408-392-3501
San Carlos Airport-Surf Air: 650 573-2666

THE FAA
San Jose: 408 291-7681
Oakland (This station covers SFO): 510 748-0122



This is NOT garden variety aviation noise resulting from a temporary shift in air traffic due to prevailing winds or other weather...this is a major shift if aviation arrival and departure traffic into/out of bay are airports which has created PERMANENT aviation "super-highways" over residential areas, and at MUCH lower altitudes than planes previously flew overhead. The noise you hear is REAL, and it's only going to increase as time goes on.


Educate yourselves about the FAA's NextGen program. The general public was basically blindsided...for obvious reasons.


Mt. View Neighbor
Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Mt. View Neighbor, Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:16 pm

Thanks, The FAA is the problem here, for posting. Unfortunate that the web addresses got deleted, but I'm sure I can find the information. Thank you again for the great post!


The FAA is the problem here
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:25 pm
The FAA is the problem here, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:25 pm

@Mt. View Neighbor,

I just doubled checked all the links - clicking the word(s) "web link" - and they were all working for me, taking me directly to the linked websites. Maybe refresh your computer and try again, as the links should be working.




Mt. View Neighbor
Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Mt. View Neighbor, Whisman Station
on Nov 20, 2015 at 6:28 pm

@The FAA is the problem here
Yes, the links are working. Thanks!


PH
Rengstorff Park
on Nov 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm
PH, Rengstorff Park
on Nov 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm

What is it people want? Let's move the traffic over people who don't complain or maybe just ban airplanes. Do any of you travel by air? They could go back and do it like they did many years ago. Build new airports way away from population centers and make people drive for miles to get there. Of course that would only create a whole new area to do it all again with new people complaining. If you live in an area served by a major airport there will be noise. If you move there you are stuck with some of it. When you live in an apartment you get to hear garbage trucks, leaf blowers and delivery people all day. It goes with the territory. If people don't like it they should move or insulate their house, but not at taxpayer expense. No one makes us live here. We chose it shouldn't have been so naive about the environment around us. There are some who have legitimate complaints, but most people are just plain making something out of a situation they got in to by living here. There are many other people with serious problems and needs for us and our government to spend time and money on. We need to get over this and move on.


Name hidden
Old Mountain View

on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:21 am
Name hidden, Old Mountain View

on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:21 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.