Recognizing that its hands are largely tied by federal regulations to change flight procedures to reduce plane noise, San Francisco International Airport officials are planning to implement a satellite system to fine tune aircraft landings that could make upstream arrivals potentially quieter.
The Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) would not change current flight patterns established under the Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen program, SFO officials told the public at an informational meeting in Palo Alto on Tuesday night. The system would not change the noisy SERFR route that has plagued residents, but there is the potential for some relief as the planes are adjusted in altitude and slope to accommodate for the landing.
The GBAS system, which was purchased by the airport and not the FAA, provides corrections and monitoring of global navigation satellite systems within a 23 nautical-mile radius (26.46 miles) of an airport. A very high-frequency radio signal broadcasts the data from a ground-based transmitter. The system yields extremely high accuracy – of less than 1 meter in both the horizontal and vertical directions. It can be installed as a non-federal navigation aid.
Initially, SFO will use the system as an overlay on the existing landings. But the airport is putting together as many as 13 “innovative concepts” approaches, said Paul Hannah, an official with SFO GBAS Airspace and Flight Procedures. After testing the approaches and making adjustments with public input, SFO will submit the approaches to the FAA for approval. Hannah said airport officials will be monitoring flight approaches to assure that the modifications made for the landings don’t cause more noise and pollution problems for residents.
One test adjustment found that planes brought in at a higher angle to land would change the flight altitude above Foster City from 1,800 feet to 1,900-1,950 feet. Another angle change would raise the altitude at Greco Island from 3,000 feet to 3,300-3,400 feet.
GBAS also makes it more feasible for planes to have more flexibility in using the virtual displaced threshold — a section of the runway that planes don’t usually use for takeoffs and landings at a point just before and after the main designated area of runway — which can be used as a noise-mitigation measure for the communities overflown by planes on approach. In the Foster City and Greco Island trials, when using virtual displaced threshold and GBAS, the altitude over Foster City rose to 2,150-2,200 feet and near Greco Island rose to 3,500-3,650 feet, Hannah noted.
Hannah said that to make sure they aren’t doing additional harm by inadvertently causing more noise or pollution, SFO will be conducting “single-event noise analysis,” for the proposed approach refinements: They will measure decibel levels from one aircraft, flying one time, and at various points along the approach path. Officials will take into consideration different noise levels made by different types of aircraft and if the adjustments are causing pilots to use noisier methods, such as speed brakes.
It is unknown what the changes will mean for Palo Alto, which sits underneath three flight paths. Officials were cautious about assuring there would be any major changes. But there could be some relief. Higher angles can move planes away from some public areas and closer to the water, Hannah noted, as officials found with their models over Foster City. But because of Palo Alto’s location on the three aircraft approach routes, it is unlikely that many planes will stop vectoring over the city, a process by which the planes loop over an area in a “holding” pattern when landings are backed up, officials said.
But using GBAS could help to make the case to FAA officials to make some adjustments that would bring greater relief, Hannah said, if they can show that the adjustments will have benefits such as improved efficiency or fuel economy.
GBAS is available on many new commercial aircraft. It is standard on Boeing 747-8 and Boeing 787 aircraft. It is also an option on Boeing 737-Next Generation (737-600/-700/-800/-900), Airbus A320, A330/340, A350, and A380 aircraft, according to the FAA. Currently, two U.S. airports have operational approval for public GBAS use: Newark Liberty International Airport and Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Internationally, GBAS is being used in airports in Bremen and Frankfurt, Germany; Sydney, Australia; Malaga, Spain; Zurich, Switzerland and 15 Russian locations.
SFO kicked off the process for the GBAS in February. Officials hope to submit the approaches to the FAA by the end of the year. If approved, the overlay flight adjustments, which are the ones that will fly the identical path that is currently proscribed, could begin by March 2020.
Officials said that they are committed to working together with the public until the airport and the public are satisfied with the changes. The public will have until Oct. 16 to submit comments to SFO by emailing GBAS program manager Daniel Lee at Daniel.Lee@flysfo.com.
Information, including the SFO presentation and a video of the meeting can be found on the city of Palo Alto’s website. The presentation should be posted by noon and the video will be up after it is processed by Midpen Media Center.
The only thing this tactic within the overall delay strategy guarantees is that Honeywell Aerospace is going to make piles of dosh as will the investors.
The aviation stakeholders, unless their profits suffer as a result of the deadly damage being done to human health and the environment, will not budge on low altitude flight paths. Their capacity increase/profit objectives depend on the low-altitude skies as one giant tarmac for taxiing aircraft.
All the coulds, hopes, mights and maybes stated here suggest altitude tweaks that are a joke, nothing but further insult and abuse to the nationwide suffering under these hellish NextGen skies. But the stakeholders and their poodles in office just pushed the timeline for possible “refinement” of “arrivals” out to 2020.
Hit aviation’s profits. Do not fly or ship by air unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
“But because of Palo Alto’s location on the three aircraft approach routes, it is unlikely that many planes will stop vectoring over the city, a process by which the planes loop over an area in a “holding” pattern when landings are backed up, officials said.”
It’s not Palo Alto’s location that is the problem.
The problem is the delinquent design of arrival routes to SFO.
How could anyone in good conscience design a spaghetti of air traffic over people (at low altitudes) and matter of factly call it “holding pattern” when landings are backed up. A design which had no previous public input, or even notice.
The new paths are now fuel efficient and time efficient. Millions of people use SFO each year, so sure, it affects some people, but it’s a greater win for environment and millions of others.
Not to pick on anyone, but there are also thousands of others that now have less noise, so think of the people who endured the noise for decades.
SFO took a page out of the FAA’s playbook last night and sent some nice men to Palo Alto City Council chambers to hoodwink the public into believing the number-one priority for GBAS was ground level noise reduction.
Of course the real reason SFO wants GBAS is to cram more aircraft into SFO. More flights equals more landing fees, more airport taxes, more parking fees collected and more customers for SFO’s concessions.
One side effect of GBAS might be, if the FAA stars line up, a very small decrease in ground level noise by 2020. Unfortunately any small decrease in ground level noise from an individual aircraft will be offset by an increase in aggregate noise due to increased traffic and increased concentration of flights onto the nominal approach routes.
The public is getting tired of this good-cop/bad-cop act. San Francisco owned and operated SFO and the FAA are working together to enrich the industry at the expense of the public but continually shirk responsibility by alternately blaming each other for the the problems.
None of this is an accident. The aircraft industry has structured itself into a confounding bureaucracy to make itself immune from public input. Local city governments were lured into, and are now addicted to, this fascistic fusion of corporate and state power with the promise of budget bolstering revenue streams subsidized through the FAA’s taxpayer funded airport improvement grant program.
Do not believe the nice men from SFO. They are professional dissemblers covering for an industry that is using Palo Alto as a toxic waste dump. SFO is no friend to Palo Alto.
Does anyone know what plane was hovering over Lindenwood and Palo Alto for about 3 hours tonight (Wednesday, 10/3/18)? It’s a Cessna C206H Stationair and it just flies in circles over and over and over again around residential neighborhoods usually around dinner time for hours on end. Happens at least a couple of times per month if not more. Way more annoying than SFO traffic or even Surf Air.
MarkS – Atherton resident
“It’s a Cessna C206H Stationair and it just flies in circles over and over and over again around residential neighborhoods usually around dinner time for hours on end. Happens at least a couple of times per month if not more. Way more annoying than SFO traffic or even Surf Air.”
The way the wind blows, the particulate matter – partially burnt jet fuel – of the multi-decker air traffic freeway puts Atherton right in the line of where the stuff may fall. This is something that can be studied for confirmation but the problem of industrial size traffic 24/7 is more than “annoying,” it kills.
During Q&A there were excellent questions from the public. While everyone felt obliged to clap and be grateful for SFO coming to do a presentation, this should be their job and a few medical experts on these panels wouldn’t hurt.
NextGen low-altitude flight paths are not safe, efficient and saving fuel. But even if you grant the stakeholders these favorite myths, the overall result of the fanatical expansion of aviation worldwide is increased destruction of human health and the environment.
And furthermore, safety and efficiency do not require the degradation of human health and the environment. It’s stakeholders’ greed that does.
Waiting for Congress to legislate for the common good rather than deadly greed anyone? Oh, wait, no, Congress is currently legislating to further degrade our health and environment by mandating the FAA get supersonic and commercial drones in our skies ASAP.
Talk with your money. That’s all they care about. Profits go down and they’ll suddenly find discover they’ve got a smidgen of conscience.
And what a scam. Welfare dependent aviation, I mean heavily subsidized. Forgot, when it’s any old Sally or Joe it’s a government handout and shameful. When it’s an industry, it’s a subsidy and good for the economy. Adding to this corruption is the frequent-flyer programs: those who fly the most, use the most of our finite common resources, pay the least, are subsidized by those who fly the least, use the least.
There is no such thing as “renewable” resources. We need the conservation movement that got hijacked to return.
Another delay strategy is the constant greenwashing talk as an offset to aviation expansion – biofuels, electric. Batteries are toxic and add drag therefore more energy usage. And where does the biofuel come from? Do the homework, and you’ll see that the A to Z biofuel process is not pretty. It’s amazing how many grossly polluting industries have adopted abstract, environmentally friendly seeming language to mask unrestrained growth objectives, insatiable consumption of our common resources for private profit.
So next time you’re in cattle class–relishing the deal on your ticket price as you notice the window laced with condensation from the previous cattle roundup, parts of your body going numb and tingly before you’ve left the tarmac, a therapy dog panting its bad breath nearby–ask yourself if it’s an experience that wouldn’t hurt you to conserve on.
Blimps are the only answer/solution to this problem.
Personally, I cannot wait for Trump’s coming big recession. It will cut back on SFO and SJC airplane traffic, just as the great recession did in 2008 and for several years thereafter. We will then have automatic relief from airplane noise. Plus the airports’ income will slump. I will actually rejoice when this happens.
SFO spends money on a new technology to make landing faster and allow for capacity expansion and the selling point is supposedly noise reduction. However,. BDGA-W and Oceanic routes that cause so much noise are completely off limit for redesign using this technology and based on their own calculation there might be small, read SMALL improvement on parts of the SRFR path, in reality unaffected. All these 3 routes, count for 60% of arriving flights onto SFO. and yet 60% of the flights do not benefit from noise improvement.How is noise reduction a benefit if the community affected by it gets no relief. This is just a cover to allow for capacity expansion. The same way that the SC meeting recommendations saved our lives (not), this is going to reduce noise (NOT).
Our city Council and legal dept need to grow a spine and sue the FAA and the SFO. The FAA told them that NEXTGEN would make no difference to the citty and that was a gross misrepresentation. Why come to the city and lie if you don’t need to do so. So the fact that they came to the city was itself an issue. yes, we may lose teh lawsuits but that is a $100K well spent in the big scheme of things. The least it could do is to put the FAA on notice.
QUOTE: Blimps are the only answer/solution to this problem.
As an air-travel related noise abatement measure, most certainly.
Speaking of which, I’d like to see the Blue Angels performing in blimps…watching their various flight formations gradually take shape would be a trip.
Very zen-like and besides, recreational marijuana is now legal in CA.
One more thing on why one shoudln’t be hopeful. At Check the current noise level according to them and and the forecasted numbers at the bottom of page 36 and you’ll be the judge of benefits of this to PA…
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50569.56&BlobID=67068
The FAA and SFO have no interest in doing anything about the flight paths. From around 7 am to late in the evening a plane goes over my neighborhood and my house every 1 – 2 minutes. This is intolerable. There is no reason that flights to SFO could not be routed in further south and higher up and go down the center of the Bay where there are no people living. It does not seem from this story that we have any recourse.
But what exactly is the effect of the physical effect of the fallout of the jet fuel particles on the population of people below the flight paths? I have asthma. It is not getting better even with increasing medication. Does anyone know if there is a measurable effect on our air? If there is, then it would seem to me the PACC has a reasonable environmental reason to pursue a lawsuit.
If anyone is under the illusion that our members of Congress, who made legal and mandatory the hellish FAA NextGen skies, intends to stop this human and environmental rights crime, have a good read of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. An overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that passed the House in April by a 393-13 vote, and passed the Senate this week by a 93-6 vote sending the supersonic and drone stakeholders into ecstasy as it makes its way for the flick of a pen at the White House.
Congress once again has mandated the FAA to destroy our health and the environment, directing it and funding it for the next years to be a global leader in getting commercial supersonic flight and drones into the skies as fast as possible, scrapping former human and environmental protections. And as Congress and its FAA steamrolled citizens with NextGen, the same is intended with supersonic and drones. These industries and their investors wanted guarantees that citizens’ concerns would not be permitted to get in the way and they got it. The citizens’ got more blah blah blah about looking at this and studying that and meeting with the public to hear concerns nonsense.
Many have said with the NextGen program, We weren’t told this was going to happen. And I’m thinking, So if you were told this was going to be done to you ahead of time rather than after that would make it okay.
What most impacts citizens lives is never on the ballot. What’s on the ballot is bad, worse, and the worst person to hold an office. Our voting ballots are like our insurance policies – guaranteed to cost you more and more while giving you less and less.
And the major media, where is it on this – out to lunch for years and counting. Too busy stoking the fires of fear, anxiety, division, and sensationalism, creating a general atmosphere of a frenzied circus that exhausts rather than enlightens.
Smaller media outlets have at least had the decency to cover this nationwide assault by aviation with the blessing of Congress.
Every sector of the aviation industry is praising the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which nails down the next 5 years, as a major win…
BTW, as to major media frenzy, I don’t care if Kavanaugh dragged his junk across a carpet at a high school or Yale party, or yesterday. He could walk all over DC naked for all I care if I can get a solid night’s sleep!
>…I cannot wait for Trump’s coming big recession. It will cut back on SFO and SJC airplane traffic, just as the great recession did in 2008 and for several years thereafter. We will then have automatic relief from airplane noise.
Not necessarily. It just means that Americans will have less money to spend. On the other hand, more passengers will be arriving from overseas to settle in Palo Alto and the surrounding communities.
This will equate to even more planes landing at SFO.
<This will equate to even more planes landing at SFO.>
More planes landing at SFO (and SJC) during a recession? Not so fast. Look at historical statistics and see what a recession does to overall airplane traffic! Hypothetical extra foreign visitors do not make up for the loss of US passengers, far from it.
> This will equate to even more planes landing at SFO.
Not if SFO is eliminated altogether. Just toss the passengers out of the planes with static lines and they can parachute into a specified jump zone. Their baggage can also be tossed out like the military does with supply shipments…on platforms with parachutes as well.
QUOTE: Not if SFO is eliminated altogether. Just toss the passengers out of the planes with static lines and they can parachute into a specified jump zone. Their baggage can also be tossed out like the military does with supply shipments…on platforms with parachutes as well.
Highly unlikely but it would be very entertaining to watch. *L*
The Blue Angels were here 10/06 for a great show. They were sponsored by United Airlines who got to talk up their contributions to air shows in general for the TV crowd watching. They also mentioned SFO and the fact that more airlines will be added for more flights. SFO is a hub for United. So that is what is advertised to the bay area in general. Also add that Moffat is the only ex-military location in the direct area that has military/government support. Travis is further afield.
So many complaints- probably the same people that complain when their flights are late or delayed. If you are one of the complainers, I challenge you to take a stand and vow to never use the Airport again- only then do you have a right to comment.
For anyone interested in the global issue of noise pollution, which the aviation industry continues to increase significantly, WHO just released its 2018 guidelines (research included America):
“New WHO noise guidelines for Europe released” 10/10/2018 (at the bottom of this release notice are links to pdf of guidelines as well as an executive summary of them):
http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2018/press-information-note-on-the-launch-of-the-who-environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-region
“strong evidence that noise is one of the top environmental hazards to both physical and mental health and well-being”
Until our legislators right the wrong they’ve unleashed, please send the only message the industries they represent understand – hit the money. When their profits go down then they’ll do something. If they cared about human health and the environment this never could have happened in the first place.
Stay grounded, as the European coalition implores. Do not fly or ship by air unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen a single group in the US fighting this call for even reducing air travel and shipments let alone cutting it as close to zero as possible.
Aviation banked on the addiction to air travel and shipments being greater than self-preservation and conserving our common resources and protecting the planet. So far, it appears aviation has calculated correctly. The noise and air pollution levels are killing us and yet…
Leo says, “I challenge you to take a stand and vow to never use the Airport again- only then do you have a right to comment”
The aviation lobby loves extremism. Fanatical expansion or “never use the Airport again” because it’s all or nothing right? No sustainable way to use transport?
The aviation industry and its stakeholders are grabbing all they can until the music stops. Quality of life, human health and the environment will have been so degraded by that point by every type of flying object they can pack into our skies that any mitigation of this 24/7 blight will be so far from pre-NextGen program quality of life conditions it’ll still be a massive win for their profit objectives.
I will not vote for anyone who doesn’t clearly and effectively fight this. Sorry, calling for more committees, roundtables, studies etc. doesn’t count in my book. It just confirms you’re bought by the aviation lobby. Look how fast our Congress can deliver for this industry, but when it comes to delivering for the people they claim to represent come election time…
It’s interesting how politicians get people fixated on THE VOTE, as if voting itself is democratic rather than what you actually get to vote on. Nice trick. I’d wager pathetic turnout has less to do with apathy than disgust. Not voting can be a form of protest. Politicians clearly don’t care if turnout is low, but they do care if it’s so low it calls into question their legitimacy.
Two very tired looking older ladies came to my door recently and when I said there’s noting on the midterm ballot for me to vote for, one said, Oh, I’m so sorry you don’t feel it’s important to have your voice heard. It’s not my voice, I told her. And when I listed critical issues not being addressed v. those the politicians are banging on about, she said, I’m not hear to argue but to encourage you to vote, to make your voice heard. They then trundled off to the next door. Tired, beaten down looking Americans are going door to door while the politicians entertain and are entertained by lobbyists.
“Blimps are the only answer/solution to this problem.”
You mean use blimps as barrage balloons?
>> Do not fly or ship by air unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen a single group in the US fighting this call for even reducing air travel and shipments let alone cutting it as close to zero as possible.
Ground shipments take too long. Ship travel takes too long and is impractical for overland travel destinations. Amtrak always derailing somewhere. Busses are a drag.
If anything, make airplanes faster. Time is a wastin’.
Air America,
A lot of air travel and shipments are inessential. If people fighting the NextGen program’s abuse of 24/7 low altitude aircraft protested by cutting their inessential use of air transport we might see a shift toward sanity in the aviation lobby and their collaborators in government.
And as for public ground or water transport options, they’ve intentionally been underfunded and therefore degraded and unsurprisingly less appealing – particularly if speed is a your key value.
Meanwhile the aviation industry is pumped full of public money and people hop on and off aircraft now like a bus.
Aviation is the most inefficient and polluting form of transportation, and when I say inefficient I’m not talking your speed value but use of resources. Common, finite resources.
“Renewable energy” is greenwashing the god of constant growth that aims for insatiable consumption of every product, including private air transport.
> And as for public ground or water transport options, they’ve intentionally been underfunded and therefore degraded and unsurprisingly less appealing – particularly if speed is a your key value.
So the key is to retool our thinking and not be in so much of a hurry? Sounds good to me but others might beg to differ.
Rushing around and trying to do too much in any given amount of time can also be bad for one’s health.
I tried to make a suggestion at HR that our company allow a siesta period between 2 and 3PM but they shot it down as an ineffective use of time. I generally take one anyway without being detected.
As far as corporate travel is concerned, I also suggested taking the Rocky Mountain tourist train to Colorado in lieu of the SF>Denver flight. Again this idea was poo-poo’d.
I see your point. What is wrong with these people who feel that time is of the essence? I like to take things slow and easy when/if I can. Life is too short to spend living by the clock.
The aviation industry, just like today’s global economy, is operating on a demand for endless growth in production, consumption and profit no matter the consequences to human health and the environment. This is inherently unsustainable. Until this core, false assumption, that this is how an economy should operate is challenged, then the fight for human health and the environment goes nowhere.
Again, maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen this challenged on the websites and Facebook pages of US groups fighting NextGen. Far from questioning the nationwide expansion of aviation there’s a lot of “spread the noise” and “share the pain” – don’t you worry about that, get out a little, do some homework, and you’ll find these wishes have long been granted. Because, you know, this is okay what’s happening, so long as it’s happened to everyone equally. I’m good with noise and sleep deprivation torture, you just better dish it out to everyone, then no problem.
Holy crap, no wonder this hell continues.
Anything Goes in PA,
Keep at it for yourself if nothing else. Couple fitting Gandhi quotes:
“There is more to life than increasing its speed”
“Be the change you wish to see in the world”
But how do the likes of Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg et al amass their billions if most people are not running around at top speed producing and consuming until they pop their clogs?
Best of luck to you in your endeavor to tilt your work culture away from the faster!, faster!, faster! is better.
> But how do the likes of Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg et al amass their billions if most people are not running around at top speed producing and consuming until they pop their clogs?
(1) By convincing employees that they are important contributors to the corporate cause or effort.
(2) By convincing consumers that their product is an essential element of their daily lives.
People are so gullible. And most don’t realize that they are either stooges or suckers.
Speed Kills,
You got that right.
QUOTE: I tried to make a suggestion at HR that our company allow a siesta period between 2 and 3PM but they shot it down as an ineffective use of time. I generally take one anyway without being detected.
Prohibition never works as people will always find a way to go around it.
QUOTE: What is wrong with these people who feel that time is of the essence? Life is too short to spend living by the clock.
“Though we rush ahead to save our time, we are only what we feel.” – Neil Young
I took a short siesta at work one time. Got caught by my supervisor and was written up. Tried to explain to HR that it was part of my cultural heritage but to no avail.
It didn’t help that they were a Texas-based company that celebrated Sam Houston Day.
So no surprise the President has already signed the FAA Reauthorization Act.
And here’s what people suffering under the FAA NextGen’s program’s 24/7 low-altitude barrage for years should be grateful the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus achieved for them:
EVALUATE: FAA to evaluate current DNL standard
STUDY/EXPLORE: FAA to study/explore re DNL other ways to measure noise
SELF-REVIEW: FAA to engage in self-review re community involvement
STUDY: FAA to study impacts of noise on affected communities
STUDY: FAA to study feasibility of phasing out Stage 3 aircraft
STUDY: FAA to study health and economic impact of noise
DESIGNATE: FAA to designate regional ombudsman to facilitate communication/grievances between communities and officials
CONSIDER: FAA to consider dispersal headings to address noise concerns
UPDATE: Airport operators to update noise exposure maps if they think a change requires it
Congress mandates the FAA to implement the NextGen program and permits a categorical exclusion of the human environment, permits the FAA, answerable to Congress but not us, to as they see fit file a FONSI. Now this same Congress passes an FAA Reauthorization Act that mandates the FAA to make things worse with supersonic and drones and is anyone surprised that this industry-captured Congress directs its FAA agency to police itself and do nothing more than:
Evaluate, study, explore, self-review, study study study, designate (bloat itself some more on the public dime), consider, and have airports in the business of expansion determine their own noise exposure maps
And this from our Quiet Skies Caucus, you know, the ones in Congress who really care about what we’re all going through…
Can we also do something to eliminate the noise coming from early the morning freight trains traveling along the SP tracks?
The horns are especially annoying.