 |
| San Carlos Airport |
"San Mateo County is looking to refine a list of strategies to combat the noise generated by planes flying into and out of the San Carlos Airport. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors held a packed study session Tuesday with some residents saying the flight paths into the airport generate too much noise while others said any restrictions are unnecessary. The board directed staff to further study noise at the airport to ease impacts on residents, especially in East Palo Alto, Atherton, North Fair Oaks and Redwood City.
.... ... In April, the board will be updated with a more focused list and in June it will consider possible adoption of the final recommendations, according to a press release. The San Carlos Airport, which is owned and operated by San Mateo County, has about 130,000 flights annually. Flights have increased 13 percent since 2012 and noise complaints have also increased significantly. .... The county, however, cannot require compliance and can do little or nothing to force operations to comply with the measures." Read more.
Related. The Almanac/Barbara Wood, 9/22/15, "County will look into San Carlos Airport noise problems." .... "The complaints have been increasing as Surf Air, a small commuter
airline that began flying in and out of the San Carlos Airport in June
2013, has steadily increased its San Carlos flights. Surf Air, which charges a monthly fee for
"all-you-can-fly" use, now has 115 scheduled weekly round-trip flights
that use the San Carlos Airport – 20 round-trips each weekday, five on
Saturdays and 10 on Sundays. The airline recently announced it has
doubled its membership in the past nine months and will be buying more
planes. Surf Air's flight path goes directly over Palo
Alto, Atherton and North Fair Oaks as it approaches the San Carlos
Airport, and residents in that flight path say the Surf Air's turboprop
planes are even noisier than jets."
Note photograph by Neil P from Flickriver.com, (several San Carlos airport photographs may be viewed on this link).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
1 comment:
Very interesting that the majority of speakers in the public comment portion of the Supervisor's March 8 meeting were GA pilots hysterical over the proposed changes to curb airport noise. One after another suggested that ANY limits on GA aircraft operations would end up closing the airport. Nothing I see in the proposals before the County Board suggests this is true. The study WILL investigate reasonable measures to give consideration to the majority of peninsula residents--those being overflown repeatedly by exceedingly disruptive props and turbo props.
Was it surprising that no pilots report being bothered by GA noise? Was it surprising that all the amateur pilots pointed fingers at Surf Air as the ONLY bad actor? Was it surprising that Surf Air club members feel their lives would be so diminished if Surf Air were not there? Was it surprising that pilots and airport proponents discounted the negative impacts (noise and pollution) of their entitled hobby or elitist travel "needs" on groundlings? None of that surprised me. It also didn't surprise me that not very many ordinary people (unaffiliated with SQL or GA airports) could give up a day of work to express their disgust over increasing noise over their yards, schools and parks.
Pilots made all kinds of wild claims in order to protect their own freedom to fly however and whenever. But they gave no supporting data. How many airport jobs would actually be lost if nighttime curfews were enacted? So what, if a few pilots have to plan around that curfew! That is one person "inconvenienced" vs. thousands having their homes and nerves rattled by loud small aircraft. If business travelers have to use SFO or SJC for travel because Surf Air is NOT appropriate for a GA airport, will the economy collapse? Perhaps these people need to adjust their lives a bit to accommodate the common good. The degree of self-centeredness expressed by speaker after flying speaker was unbelievable; no sense of other, at all.
In answer to the speakers at the meeting who suggested noise complaints were only from a few "whiners", about noise that lasts only ten seconds, I say this. First, my hearing must be much better than yours. Most GA planes can be heard for 30-90 seconds. And even a momentary interruption has consequences. What if a prankster rang your doorbell 300 times a day? It is NOT a deafening sound. After the first we rings you would stop going to the door. But could you ignore the sound? It is NOT of great duration. It IS a distraction from quiet enjoyment or work in one's own home.
I am a retired teacher. I know from experience that if the door opens in a classroom, all attention goes to that point. Likewise, when a plane buzzes a school, all attention is taken from instruction or learning and getting back on track takes many students longer than ten seconds.
Let's be clear about who the County Board of Supervisors represent. They represent everyone in the county; maybe a few hundred pilots, among the tens of thousands not affiliated in any way with the airport. They also represent the residents who are aggravated enough to navigate the cumbersome noise complaint system (which takes longer to use than the plane took to fly over) to try and achieve some sensible limits on aviation at this county airport. Is it really so hard for a complaint system to remember the user's name, address, e-mail, etc. to avoid having them enter that info with every noise complaint? The time consuming complaint system is actually a deterrent to complainants--adding insult to injury. Let's hope the County study comes up with solutions to provide relief to residents on the peninsula.
Post a Comment