HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9509
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9509)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 8/13/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Status Update on Airplane Noise Issues
Title: Status Update on Airplane Noise Issues
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Executive Summary
This memo provides a status update on issues related to airplane noise.
Background
At the Council Meeting of May 7, 2018, Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to:
direct the Mayor to regularly assign one or more Council Members to actively participate on
available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and direct Staff to:
A. Request temporary noise monitoring from San Francisco International Airport (SFO);
B. Provide support to Palo Alto Council Members participating on available community
roundtables related to aircraft impacts;
C. Continue to include the health impacts of aircraft noise and emissions in the City’s regional,
state and federal legislative priorities and engage with policy makers and associated advocacy
groups as appropriate;
D. Include in the above efforts Palo Alto’s support for:
i. Improvements to SFO’s Fly Quiet Program;
ii. Adherence to the agreement to, whenever able, increase the altitude of aircraft over
the Peninsula;
iii. Maximizing the use of the BDEGA East Arrival route to SFO when possible;
iv. Collaboration with other jurisdictions to develop a regional position in support
system-wide solutions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA);
v. Development of a noise-monitoring plan in concert with other jurisdictions;
vi. Maximizing sequencing under current conditions and prioritizing the application of
air traffic control technology to improve sequencing and aircraft management to
minimize community impacts;
vii. Adoption of improved metrics for airplane noise and related impacts;
viii. Greater community engagement by the FAA, SFO and the San Jose International
Airport (SJC);
City of Palo Alto Page 2
E. Bring to Council as fast as possible a plan for a litigation strategy in support of procedural
changes affecting Palo Alto and investigate the best approach for filing timely lawsuits within 60
days of an appropriate new event:
i. Work on forming a multi-city legal alliance;
ii. ii. Define a process to monitor FAA flight path changes;
iii. iii. Evaluate retaining technical and legal expertise; and
F. Develop a system to evaluate and respond to the FAA Update on Phase Two report,
November 2017 and April 2018 and future FAA Reports.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
Discussion
On May 18, 2018, the City of San José’s Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals into
Mineta San José International Airport released its Final Report. Councilmember Lydia Kou
represented the City of Palo Alto on this committee. A copy of the final report is included with
this memo as Attachment A.
The Cities Association of Santa Clara County has proposed the creation of a Santa Clara/Santa
Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable to serve as a venue to facilitate regional collaboration
regarding aircraft noise. A resolution, bylaws and memorandum of understanding for the City of
Palo Alto to join the roundtable are scheduled for consideration by the Palo Alto City Council at
its meeting of August 13, 2018.
The staff of the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office have confirmed that SFO is prepared to
partner with the City of Palo Alto on temporary noise monitoring in our area. Given Council’s
direction to staff to pursue development of a noise-monitoring plan in concert with other
jurisdictions, and given the particularly technical interests of some of Palo Alto’s citizens who
are engaged in this topic, City staff are conducting preparatory research before approaching
SFO to request an optimally informed approach to temporary noise monitoring.
The City Manager remains committed to providing support to Palo Alto Councilmembers
participating on community roundtables related to aircraft impacts. In late August, a new
Assistant to the City Manager will be joining the staff of the City Manager’s Office with a wide
portfolio of responsibilities including airplane noise.
The City of Palo Alto has continued to advocate with federal policy makers regarding the
significance of the health impacts of aircraft noise and emissions on our community. Our
legislative advocacy representatives in Washington, D.C., Van Scoyoc Associates, have been
monitoring the progress of the FAA Reauthorization bill from the U.S. House of Representatives
to the U.S. Senate and championing favorable noise provisions under consideration, including
coordinating with the National League of Cities and other local community advocates. The City
has also formally joined the National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E.) which advocates for reducing the impact of aviation noise on local communities.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
With respect to developing a plan to review FAA procedural changes affecting Palo Alto and
investigating the best approach for the consideration of filing timely lawsuits, the City Attorney
has initiated discussions with the city attorneys in Santa Clara County to explore the feasibility
of forming a multi-city legal alliance. In June, City staff extended the city’s contract with Freytag
& Associates, LLC to ensure the city would have technical support resources available in
addition to those available through the City’s contract with Richards Aviation Consultants for
technical assistance regarding FAA flight path changes. In addition, the City continues to retain
the firm of Kaplan Kirsch for legal expertise. City staff will provide the City Council with a more
detailed status update on these elements in September 2018.
The City is preparing a letter to the FAA in response to its April 2018 Further Update on Phase
Two of the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San
Francisco Counties. City staff will produce any letters in response to future FAA Updates to the
Phase Two Report within two months of the report’s issuance.
Fiscal Impact
There is no current budget for initiatives related to airplane noise. City staff are in the process
of researching potential costs associated with tentative proposals that may be developed in the
future.
Attachments:
Attachment A: SJC South Flow Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Final Report
1
REPORT OF THE
AD HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
SOUTH FLOW
ARRIVALS
AD HOC
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
SOUTH FLOW
ARRIVALS
May 18, 2018
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
2
Dear Tony DiBernardo:
With this letter, I convey to you the final report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow
Arrivals.
These recommendations reflect the work of the fourteen-member Committee, over the course of
eight meetings during the past six months.
The focus of this Committee has been the south flow arrival path into the Norman Y. Mineta San José
International Airport (SJC). During times of inclement weather, some mornings, or during frontal
passages, the wind at SJC will blow from the south. For safety reasons, aircraft must take off and land
into these southerly winds, requiring the airport to operate in "south flow," an alternate arrival path
into SJC that allows aircraft to land and take off into the wind.
During these times, aircraft have followed basic arrival and approach paths to the west of SJC over
San José, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Santa Clara, before turning east to
return to the airport. As weather changes - the airport returns to "north flow," the most common
configuration, and Air Traffic Control begins directing aircraft to arrive over downtown San José.
The airspace over Santa Clara County and the entire San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most
complex airspace for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct safe flight operations.
There are three major international airports as well as numerous smaller airports. The interactions of
all these facilities and weather play a part in the flight procedures that are used at SJC. The focus of
this Committee is on the procedures that are used for south flow arrivals at SJC.
The Committee’s recommendations can succinctly be prioritized as:
Fly more dispersed Western approach;
Explore other approaches;
Modify procedures to reduce the ground noise generated by aircraft;
Implement FAA Policy Changes;
Avoid noisy flight maneuvers;
Implement noise management measures at SJC;
Explore single regional noise reporting system.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee reviewed and prioritized numerous noise mitigation
recommendations (See Appendix A) and has listed the mitigations under the appropriate category.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
3
Having conveyed these recommendations, we request that the FAA and SJC:
Evaluate and report on the consequences and impact (including noise Aviation Environmental
Design Tool (AEDT) impact assessment) of each mitigation measure in Appendix A.
Provide a timeline for when the committee can expect documented responses
Provide written responses documenting the FAA and SJC evaluation and conclusions on the
feasibility of implementing what has been requested for each recommendation
Prior to the implementation of any change, consult with the Committee/Cities Association to
determine which appropriate recommendations to implement,
Continue to prioritize safety of flight as its number one priority; and raise the priority of
ground level per flight aircraft noise so that the FAA can better mitigate the impact to our
residents
The Committee believes timely assessment, prioritization, and implementation of the
recommendations will provide noise mitigation to the communities experiencing the impacts of noise
from south flow arrivals.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hendricks
Mayor, Sunnyvale
Chair, Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 5
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 6
What Are South Flow Operations? ...................................................................................................... 6
South Flow and the NorCal Metroplex ................................................................................................ 6
Formation of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals .............................................. 7
Recommendation Areas ........................................................................................................................... 8
Fly More Dispersed Western Approach ............................................................................................... 8
Explore Other Approaches ................................................................................................................. 11
Modify Procedures to Reduce the Per Flight Ground Noise Generated by Aircraft ......................... 13
Implement FAA Policy Changes ......................................................................................................... 14
Avoid Noisy Flight Maneuvers ........................................................................................................... 16
Implement Noise Management Measures at SJC .............................................................................. 17
Explore Single Regional Noise Reporting System .............................................................................. 18
Responses from the FAA ......................................................................................................................... 19
List of Committee Members ................................................................................................................... 20
List of Meeting Dates .............................................................................................................................. 21
Materials and Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List .......................................................................................................... 23
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
5
Acknowledgements
The Committee would like to thank the San José City Council for initiating the Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee on South Flow Arrivals, thereby demonstrating through the Committee their commitment
to proactively identify mitigations to these challenges.
The Committee would also like to acknowledge and thank the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
as they have attended every meeting with knowledgeable and committed staff. Through various
presentations and guest speakers, the FAA demonstrated a real effort to share information and
educate the Committee and public about the complexity of the airspace among other issues. The
committee feels the FAA participated in these meetings as a willing partner in search of practical
solutions.
The San José Airport staff has been fantastic and true partners in this effort. The Committee is
appreciative of the meeting space and coordination provided by the staff. In particular, the
Committee would like to recognize Matthew Kazmierczak, Manager of Strategy & Policy at San José
International Airport for his outstanding knowledge support.
I want to thank all the members of the Committee for the countless hours spent trying to problem
solve such a complex issue. The calm, rational thoughtfulness that the members brought to every
meeting created a great collaborative environment.
Most important, the Committee wishes to thank the members of the public who attended these
meetings and/or provided input. Our residents clearly showed a passion for this topic and a zeal for
wanting to find transparent solutions that would work for all parties involved. They are focused on
sharing their experiences, learning about the constraints and offering perspective on possible
mitigations.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
6
Background
A series of flight path changes have been implemented by the FAA in early 2012 that have resulted in
a major westward shift and concentration of air traffic corridors.
The level and intensity of aviation noise experienced by residents of Santa Clara County is dependent
on various factors including proximity to existing flight paths, time of day, and weather conditions.
The noise consequences from the implementation of NextGen and overall increase of flights in our
region are having a negative impact on the quality of life of our residents. In response to growing
community complaints and concerns about aviation noise, Committee members request that the FAA
assess, prioritize and implement timely noise mitigation solutions, in conjunction with this Committee
or a successor organization.
WHAT ARE SOUTH FLOW OPERATIONS?
Normally, aircraft at SJC land descending from the south (over parts of downtown San José) and take
off heading north. However, under certain weather conditions (mostly when the wind shifts direction
at the Airport and flows from the south at higher speeds), for the sake of operational safety, the FAA
requires pilots of arriving aircraft to follow an arrival procedure that can take descending aircraft over
parts of San José, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto and other communities as they
prepare to land at SJC approaching from the north flying south. When that arrival procedure is used,
air operations are in “south flow.”
More recently, the use of the south flow procedure has increased significantly as wind conditions that
cause the need for south flow operations have started earlier in the day and have been lasting longer.
Since 2015, new air traffic control technology installed by the FAA and in aircraft have resulted in
more precise and narrowly concentrated arrival patterns, especially over San José, Sunnyvale,
Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Use of the NextGen technology has increased per-flight,
noise for residents. While this may have reduced noise for some residents, noise has increased for
those residents living directly under the more precise arrival and approach flight paths.
SOUTH FLOW AND THE N ORCAL METROPLEX
The FAA has testified that Northern California is the second most complicated metroplex location
after New York City for air traffic given the proximity and flight patterns of its three primary airports:
San Francisco (SFO), San José (SJC), and Oakland (OAK). For safety purposes, air traffic procedures are
required to maintain a safe vertical and horizontal distance from other aircrafts, as well as approach
and departure flight paths.
FAA staff has presented that a south flow arrival approach is a more complicated procedure than
north flow given its proximity to other flight procedures for SFO traffic, and as such, it is a less
preferred procedure when compared with north flow. The FAA stated that they only switch to south
flow when wind and weather conditions require it. The preferred approach is north flow where
planes approach SJC from the south flying north, as there is less air traffic from other airports.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
7
FORMATION OF THE AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOUTH FLOW ARRIVALS
In November 2016, Sunnyvale and Mountain View residents attended the SJC Airport Commission
meeting to ask the Commission to address their noise concerns. The Commission requested staff to
write the FAA to ask for solutions to address the south flow noise issue. While the FAA responded to
staff’s correspondence, the response offered no adjustments in the procedure.
Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto residents returned to the Commission in February 2017 to
request the Commission’s support for the formation of a body to address south flow noise issues. In
response, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the formation of a body that included
FAA participation.
In March 2017, the Airport hosted a meeting organized by Congressman Ro Khanna’s office. Elected
officials from Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino, San José, the FAA, and the Airport attended to
discuss the south flow issue and possible solutions. There was consensus that it would be
constructive to have public information and discussion forums to understand why the south flow
procedure is used and to review possible solutions to reduce the noise for the most impacted
residents. The FAA and the Airport agreed to participate in the forums.
In response to the SJC Commission’s recommendation, Airport staff reviewed the formation and
structure of the SFO Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, which was an ad hoc noise committee
formed in May 2016 by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and former
Congressman Sam Farr. The Select Committee brought together elected officials from the
jurisdictions of three counties to look at the noise impacts of the FAA’s 2015 implementation of its
NextGen technology. The Committee ultimately made a series of consensus-based recommendations
before disbanding in November 2016. The three Congressional offices endorsed and transmitted the
Committee’s recommendations to the FAA for review.
In reviewing the Select Committee model, Airport staff determined that the ad hoc model is a good
process for conducting a regional discussion on possible solutions to address the noise impacts of the
south flow procedure at SJC. Based on this, the City of San José formed the Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee on South Flow Arrivals to discuss possible solutions. The Committee is an advisory body
with no legal authority. Its purpose is to provide potentially feasible and consensus-based
recommendations to the FAA to mitigate the noise impacts of the south flow procedure.
To encourage inclusiveness and consensus, all Santa Clara County cities were invited to participate on
the Committee. FAA staff and San José Airport staff have also participated in the discussions with the
FAA providing technical support and the Airport providing non-technical support.
These meetings have produced the recommendations that follow.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
8
Recommendation Areas
FLY MORE DISPERSED W ESTERN APPROACH
Prior to the implementation of Metroplex/NextGen, aircraft were dispersed over a broader area of air
space thereby limiting concentrated negative effects on residents and neighborhoods. A dramatic
increase in noise complaints resulted from the implementation of NextGen, a program which
switched a radar-based approach to a GPS approach, which also resulted in the use of Required
Navigation Performance (RNP) and Optimal Profile Descent (OPD). These tools and procedures
create a concentration of flight paths, referred to as a “rail” over specific neighborhoods and homes
as shown in Figure 2, where residents bear the brunt of ground effect noise.
The FAA has stated that having a predictable, repeatable and consistent set of procedures improves
safety, workload and communication for aircraft preparing for landings. The Committee has reason to
believe that if nothing is done to address dispersion, over time still more concentration will occur.
Appendix A identifies many suggestions for “how” to achieve a more dispersed Western approach.
(See spreadsheet items Q through CC). The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is requesting written
responses from the FAA to these items.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
9
Request to the FAA 1: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to explore options
and procedure changes that will still allow for the safe landing of aircraft at SJC AND return to a
more dispersed distribution of aircraft. (Using the success criteria listed below)
Dispersion of the existing air traffic can mean different things in each of the impacted cities.
Directionally the Committee recommends that the FAA drive towards: 1) do not route airplanes
over narrow rails; 2) reversion to ground noise patterns prior to 2012 in the same geographic
proportions as before.
Without being prescriptive of “how” to achieve dispersion of the existing air traffic over each city, the
following details will try and define success criteria for dispersion of aircraft over each city.
San José
The City of San José does not have a prescription for the dispersion of aircraft on the western south
flow approach to the SJC.
Cupertino
For the City of Cupertino – dispersion would mean that flight paths are distributed and not
concentrated over a narrow flight path. Current south flow flight paths appear to be from JESEN to
ZORSA and not from JESEN to PUCKK, or from JESEN to any point between waypoints ZORSA and
PUCKK. It would be preferable for flight paths to be more evenly distributed between JESEN/ZORSA
flight paths and JESEN/PUCKK flight paths. Alternative flight paths from JESEN to any point between
waypoints ZORSA and PUCKK may also be good options for achieving dispersion and avoiding narrow
flight path concentrations
Sunnyvale
For the City of Sunnyvale, dispersion would mean even distribution of the existing aircraft between
the ZORSA and PUCKK waypoints. Not that aircraft would fly over these specific points, but rather use
these waypoints (ZORSA and PUCKK) as an eastern and western outside logical boundary of where
aircraft would fly over the city. Define a set of procedures, rules or processes, that would enable FAA
to safely and equivalently distribute traffic over Sunnyvale between these two designated waypoints
(measured over frequent interval).
Mountain View
For the City of Mountain View – dispersion of aircraft is essential to a solution. Two rails (straight and
semi-circular) have sharply concentrated noise over Mountain View in recent years. These rails come
from use of an RNP approach and a new vectoring procedure. Mountain View would like to see the
dispersion that existed before 2012, even if that means returning some control to pilots. Can
airplanes that are capable of turns that are tighter than the RNP turn begin their turn prior to
reaching ZORSA, dispersing traffic to the East of the RNP rail? Can traffic on the STAR procedures
make their turn at or after JESEN at slightly different locations and with slightly different headings,
perhaps by recreating PUCKK as the terminal waypoint (infrequently reached) on the arrival
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
10
procedure? This could ‘spray’ traffic across Sunnyvale and Mountain View and along the length of
Hwy 101 as before. Would creation of a charted visual approach help? With different procedures,
could ATC contribute to these ends? Recreating the long-standing traffic patterns that existed prior to
2012 would reduce complaints significantly.
Palo Alto
Palo Alto wants to return to the same level of dispersion as the one that existed before NextGen and
as illustrated by the Feb 2011 data presented by the FAA. It means that:
Palo Alto should not get about 50% of the SJC south flow arrivals making their turn
over residential communities, especially considering SFO arrivals that are highly
concentrated near the MENLO waypoint due to NextGen changes
Vectored flights are NOT always vectored in the exact same way (otherwise, it creates
a rail corridor of vectored aircraft). Air Traffic Control (ATC) could use multiple
headings to create separate vectoring paths and disperse noise.
Every effort should be made to take advantage of compatible land use (e.g. industrial,
commercial, water, uninhabited areas, freeways) to minimize noise over residential
communities.
The FAA should seek solutions at the Metroplex level to create opportunities to
decrease noise substantially for the many residents that have been affected by the
NextGen changes. See items PP, QQ, RR in the Excel file.
Santa Clara
The City of Santa Clara is on the “Rail” in the North part of the City. The City is interested in
determining how any changes would affect the City, but also finding modifications to the flight path
to significantly decrease sound levels. One of the key inputs should be what an acceptable noise level
is, and how can residents be empowered to have real-time information to assure that noise levels
stay at acceptable levels. Are there better ways for residents to measure and report noise to the FAA
(such as an App where residents can measure noise and report concerns immediately)?
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
11
EXPLORE OTHER APPROA CHES
When the south flow arrival pattern is initiated for SJC, most traffic flies toward and through the
ZORSA waypoint over San José, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto makes a right-
hand turn to intersect with the final approach pattern to land.
In reviewing radar data, there is some amount of traffic that lands at SJC during south flow that is
vectored to land from the east. That traffic comes in and makes a left-hand turn to intersect the final
approach.
The FAA has told the Committee that vectoring is only used to sequence airplanes and that they do
not vector airplanes for noise. The Committee notes that if the FAA is successful at reducing the need
for vectoring in the future, south flow traffic currently being vectored to the eastern approach will by
default, be shifted to the western approach.
Request to the FAA 2A: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA maintain the use of
the Eastern vectoring for south flow arrivals as much as operationally feasible. This is an important
tool in the controller’s toolkit.
Request to the FAA 2B: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA study the usage of
the Eastern vectoring for south flow arrivals for the past 5 years and provide an explanation for any
changes, increases and/or decreases.
Request to the FAA 2C: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to document why,
when, and how an Eastern vectoring is used into SJC during south flow.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
12
Request to the FAA 2D: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to explore a
Chartered Visual Approaches from the east and west. See item V in Appendix A.
Milpitas
Maintaining the current frequency of use of the Eastern approach ensures that we are not “just”
moving ground level impacting noise to other residential communities. The Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee requests that should there be increased flight volume at SJC, the FAA implement an
equal dispersing of those flights to all approaches so that one zone or area of communities is not
burdened.
San José
The City of San José strongly opposes any prescription for dispersion that would move more
aircraft towards an Eastern approach to SJC during south flow. A move to fly more aircraft than
currently diverted onto an Eastern approach has the potential to put more aircraft over some of
the lower-income communities of San José and could present environmental justice and
socioeconomic fairness concerns. When aircraft are in the normal north flow approach to SJC, San
José residents already experience the largest share of aircraft noise, some 85 percent of the time.
Appendix A identifies suggestions for “how” this might be accomplished. (See spreadsheet items M,
N, and P). The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is requesting written responses from the FAA to these
items.
Regardless of the outcome of this evaluation, the Committee requests the FAA not lose or stop the
vectored approach that some aircraft currently use to approach and land at SJC. It is important we do
not reduce the amount of traffic using this path.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
13
MODIFY PROCEDURES TO REDUCE THE PER FLIGHT GROUND NOISE GENERATED BY
AIRCRAFT
The objective the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is to achieve the reduction and/or mitigation of ground
level per flight impacting noise from aircraft. Items A through K from the spreadsheet are suggestions
for how to achieve noise reduction.
Per information that was provided by the FAA at the April 13, 2018 Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
meeting, the highest probability items to implement are D, E, F of the spreadsheet. (The FAA’s
comments were not a commitment that these items could be implemented or that they would
achieve the desired results.)
Request to the FAA 3: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA initiate a full
procedure evaluation to implement item E and F, the purpose being to implement the concept of
item D.
These items are based on the concept that all other things being equal, “altitude is our friend,” as it
relates to ground level per flight impact noise from aircraft. The higher the aircraft, the less its noise
will impact residents on the ground.
If the FAA has additional suggestions on raising aircraft altitude, these should also be included in the
evaluations.
The success criteria for this set of items is to safely land aircraft at SJC and keep the aircraft as high as
possible for as long as possible without requiring added lift, brakes or jet thrust, while still allowing
for safety, appropriate decent paths, and sequencing to land at the airport.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
14
IMPLEMENT FAA POLICY CHANGES
Sound Monitoring in the Impacted Cities
Since the implementation of NexGen, the FAA has not changed how it reviews noise impacts to
communities. Noise impacts due to changes in aviation paths and procedures have been reviewed
using noise modeling technology instead of actual measurement of noise generated from aircraft.
The Committee requests the FAA monitor actual noise generated and, furthermore, establish a
benchmark to measure pre and post implementation of recommended changes, thereby making it
easier to analyze effectiveness.
Request to the FAA 4: Implement aircraft noise monitoring (by appropriate entity) in areas
throughout Santa Clara County to measure the effectiveness of noise mitigation solutions. Noise
data captured by sound monitoring should be used by the FAA to validate the modeling tools the
FAA uses as part of its environmental impact evaluations.
The point of noise modeling is to simulate real-world conditions. The noise models used by the FAA
should be calibrated ground level noise under varying weather conditions. If certain south flow flight
procedures have been optimized for sound, the procedure designers should ensure that they have
calibrated their procedures to the weather conditions most prevalent when those procedures are to
be deployed.
Appendix A identified suggestions for “how” this might be accomplished. (See items K, MM and OO).
Request to the FAA 5: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals is aware that for
each new potential aviation route into the San Francisco Metroplex a noise simulation and
prediction is/was required. The Committee requests that the FAA provide those simulation
results that include predicted noise levels and all other associated data.
Further, The Committee requests that when the FAA posts a procedure for public comment at the
Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) gateway, environmental analyses, including noise assessments,
pertaining to that procedure shall be posted along with it, and at the same time.
Improve Public Outreach
In April, it was discovered that the FAA was in the process of evaluating a new approach procedure
for SJC Instrument Landing System (ILS), which would take effect in July of 2018. Neither the FAA
meeting representatives, Committee, or the public were aware this change was being considered.
The lack of public outreach to potential affected communities highlighted the need for transparency
and improved public process and communication. Included in Appendix C are letters from the
Mayors of Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto concerning the lack of transparency on this issue.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
15
Request to the FAA 6A: The Committee is requesting that the FAA improve the notification
mechanisms to better alert potential affected communities when procedures are being reviewed.
Simply posting to the FAA’s IFP Gateway website at the National level is not sufficient to provide
clear, layman understandable language and transparent information to the public. There needs to
be better regional and local outreach process that informs public officials and members of the
public when changes are being proposed in their region.
Request to the FAA 6B: The Committee is requesting the FAA to ask all affected Airlines to
participate along with FAA, SJC, and interested public constituents when discussions regarding
existing and proposed flight path changes are being considered for adoption.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
16
AVOID NOISY FLIGHT MANEUVERS
The Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing and hearing from FAA, traffic control
and airport officials on noise mitigation through airplane flight modifications. Committee members
explored scenarios where changing airplane speed, altitude, and aircraft vectoring could have a noise
reduction impact, below are the recommended mitigations:
Items: A, B, C, G, H, J, K
Given the technical complexity of these items, the Committee does not have a specific ranking
recommendations. Instead, the success criteria is the same, which is to implement changes that allow
for the continued safe flight operations of aircraft while reducing the impact of ground level per flight
noise on impacted communities.
Request to the FAA 7: The Committee is requesting the FAA review these suggestions and
provide a written response about the feasibility of implementation.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
17
IMPLEMENT NOISE MANAGEMENT MEASURES AT SJC
Mitigating noise should also be explored from an airport operator perspective. Operationally,
consideration should be given to modifying arrival flight profiles and capitalizing on advanced
navigational technologies, as well as reviewing noise curfews. Other noise management options
include working with airlines and pilots to manage airplane noise, examples include the Fly Quiet
Program, and creating a Pilot Awareness Program.
Request to SJC A: The Committee recommends that the San José Airport respond to the
following recommendations and provide a response on feasibility of implementation. Prioritized
items DD through LL.
San José Airport has provided additional information for items DD through LL in Appendix A. This
information ranges from federal regulations of noise and landing requirements to the information
contained in SJC’s noise reports.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
18
EXPLORE SINGLE REGIONAL NOISE REPORTING SYSTEM
The existing noise complaint system is confusing and places a significant burden on the complaint
reporter, requiring fields such as aircraft type and destination airport. Before a complaint can be
processed, contact information for the specific airport must be researched. A separate process exists
for submitting complaints on south flow aircraft noise. This is an undue burden placed on the
residents reporting noise concerns that have already been clearly defined and documented as
occurring.
Request to the FAA 8A (or SJC, if they are the more appropriate body): The Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee requests the FAA to initiate a study to look at creating or adopting a single
Aircraft Noise Reporting System for the area, including, but not limited to: Ease of reporting by the
public; transparent agency analysis; agency response; and publicly access reporting results. The
user interface for this system should minimize the number of “clicks” required to log a complaint.
Request to the FAA 8B: The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests that the FAA initiate a study
to use the information collected in 8A to identify and analyze noise trends that should be
addressed.
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
19
Responses from the FAA
The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals was designed to be limited term, starting in
January 2018 and sunsetting in May 2018. The Committee believes it is important to define a contact
protocol once the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals has concluded for the FAA to
provide its response to the recommendations.
Recommendation: When the FAA has any feedback on the Committee’s requests or additional
questions, the FAA should contact:
Matthew Kazmierczak, Manager of Strategy & Policy at San José International Airport
Matthew.Kazmierczak@sanjoseca.gov
Glenn Hendricks, Mayor of Sunnyvale and Committee Chair Person
mayor@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Andi Jordan – Cities Association of Santa Clara County
andi@citiesassociation.org
Depending on the information provided by the FAA, the designated contact representatives shall:
Pass information on from the FAA to Committee members
Post information on the Committee website hosted by SJC:
https://www.flysanjose.com/Ad_Hoc_Meetings
Additionally, the contacts may:
Convene an informal meeting of the former Committee members
Provide responses to FAA questions
Other actions, as may be deemed necessary
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
20
List of Committee Members
Councilmember Jeffery Cristina – Campbell
Councilmember Savita Vaidhyanthan – Cupertino
Mayor Jean (John) Mordo – Los Altos
Councilmember Gary Waldeck – Los Altos Hills
Councilmember Bob Nuñez – Milpitas
Councilmember Rowena Turner – Monte Sereno
Councilmember Rene Soring – Morgan Hill
Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak – Mountain View
Councilmember Lydia Kou – Palo Alto
Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald – Saratoga
Councilmember Charles “Chappie” Jones – San José (Vice Chair)
Councilmember Raul Peralez – San José
Vice Mayor Kathy Watanabe – City of Santa Clara
Mayor Glenn Hendricks – Sunnyvale (Chair)
List of Committee Alternate Members
Councilmember Liz Gibbons – Campbell
Councilmember Steven Scharf – Cupertino
Councilmember Barry Chang – Cupertino (Alternate to the Alternate)
Vice Mayor Lynette Lee Eng – Los Altos
Vice Mayor Marsha Grilli – Milpitas
Vice Mayor Evert Wolsheimer– Monte Sereno
Councilmember Larry Carr – Morgan Hill
Mayor Leonard Siegel – Mountain View
Vice Mayor Eric Filseth – Palo Alto
Councilmember Howard Miller – Saratoga
Councilmember Johnny Khamis – San José
Councilmember Teresa O’Neill – City of Santa Clara
Vice Mayor Larry Klein – Sunnyvale
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
21
List of Meeting Dates
November 27, 2016 – Organizational Meeting – City of San José Committee Room
January 26, 2018 – City of San José Council Chambers
February 23, 2018 – SJC, Boeing Conference Room
March 9, 2018 – SJC, Boeing Conference Room
March 23, 2018 - SJC, Boeing Conference Room
April 13, 2018 – SJC, Boeing Conference Room
April 27, 2018 – SJC, Boeing Conference Room
May 18, 2018 – SJC, Boeing Conference Room
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
22
Materials and Appendices
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List
Appendix B: Meeting Documents (link)
Appendix C: Public Comments (link)
Links to YouTube videos of the Committee Meetings:
1/26/2018 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dMAvbNpmkM
2/23/2018 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUBy6Hf0kyc
3/23/2018 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yt72AMFeA
Links to the audio recordings of the Committee Meetings are available at the SJC website:
https://www.flysanjose.com/Ad_Hoc_Committee_Recordings
Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
23
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
A
Modify the
way planes
fly
Limit speed to
slowest & safest
possible
Limit speed to a minimum necessary for safety on
approach.
At 220kts, Airframe noise = Engine noise for
departures. Since engine noise on arrivals is almost
certainly lower than on departures for any given
speed, the guidance would be to reduce the
airframe noise as much as possible (until it reaches
the engine noise): to do this, fly slower and cleaner.
Minimum safe speed varies by airplane. It is the minium above the stall speed.
Within reason, favor lower peak noise levels over shorter noise duration. During
south flow, people can be indoors with windows closed. Minimizing peak noise
levels will reduce the number of noticeable events indoors.
B
Modify the
way planes
fly
Limit speed to
lowest possible
when under
4000’
Limit speed to a maximum necessary for safety on
approach when airplanes are 4000’ or lower.Minimum safe speed varies by airplane. It is the minium above the stall speed.
C
Modify the
way planes
fly
Glide (OPD?)
Have planes glide to landing to eliminate noise
from engines and minimize use of lift devices (flaps,
slats) and braking devices.
Is FMS or pilot in control?
D
Modify the
way planes
fly
Raise altitude Raise altitude along the approach, provided
airplanes do not have to fly dirtier or use jet thrust.
E
Modify the
way planes
fly
Raise altitude at
ZORSA
Return ZORSA to 3,200’ and make it a minimum
altitude, provided airplanes do not have to fly
dirtier or use jet thrust.
Why not? - FAA safety standards?
Is the altitude at ZORSA a Minimum En Route Altitude (MEA instead of a crossing
altitude)?
A commercial pilot reviewing the RNP AR Z approach said that he wouldn’t be
surprised if the 3000' altitude was programmed into the FMS. We should be able
to determine this.
The FAA Design Guide for OPD procedures advocates 'path flexibility' as a means
to enable airplanes to descend efficiently and at a quiet idle. The fewer
constraints in OPD paths and arrival procedures, the more freedom planes will
have to descend efficiently and quietly.
F
Modify the
way planes
fly
Relax altitude at
HITIR
Relax the altitude requirements at HITIR from
exactly 4000’ to at or above 4000’.
Use the additional altitude to reduce the need for lift devices and thrust during
the remainder of the approach over residential areas.
The FAA Design Guide for OPD procedures advocates 'path flexibility' as a means
to enable airplanes to descend efficiently and at a quiet idle. The fewer
constraints in OPD paths and arrival procedures, the more freedom planes will
have to descend efficiently and quietly.
G
Modify the
way planes
fly
Relax altitude
and speed at
HITIR
Allow planes to arrive at HITIR at altitudes and
speeds that allow them to reach the Bay without
flying dirty or using thrust.
The FAA Design Guide for OPD procedures advocates 'path flexibility' as a means
to enable airplanes to descend efficiently and at a quiet idle. The fewer
constraints in OPD paths and arrival procedures, the more freedom planes will
have to descend efficiently and quietly.
H
Modify the
way planes
fly
Optimize
descent profile
to HITIR (OPD?)
The FAA should initiate R&D to enable ATC
procedures that would encourage vectored
airplanes to descend at a glide.
I
Modify the
way planes
fly
Use gradual,
smooth descent
(OPD)
Have planes gradually descend along a smooth
descent flight pattern to limit stepping and the
need for engine changes to maintain altitude.
Need to determine the amount of stepping that is currently occurring and where
it is occurring. Need to understand how low a plane should go over which areas
even with no steps.
1 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
J
Modify the
way planes
fly
Limit or defer
flight
procedures
that are noisy
Design arrival and departure procedures to
minimize noise.
Establish noise monitors in entire low altitude areas
around airport.
Compare noise as measured on the ground under
varying weather conditions for procedures when 1)
flown by pilots and 2) flown by flight management
systems. Report results, along with 3) the modeled
noise prediction(s).
Are we measuring when FMS or pilot controls?
What design data is available to route designers?
Which flights are noisier? Why?
The definition of a noisy procedure needs to be clarified - start with use of lift
devices, braking devices and jet thrust.
How will we measure this?
We need to get long-term, reliable and government acknowledged noise
monitoring.
Per the FAA, the FAA's noise modeling tool, AEDT version 2d, is being improved.
Later this year, AEDT version 3a is "Seeking to improve abilities at lower DNL.
Improving takeoff weight and thrust modeling; Improving aircraft performance
module". AEDT4 will "incorporate airframe noise more explicitly" in a post 2020
release. Source: Dr. James Hileman presentation, 2/27/18.
K
Modify the
way planes
fly
Optimize
procedures for
noise
Optimize all arrival and approach procedures for
noise assuming the weather expected when the
procedures are to be deployed. Bring focus to the
75% of flights that do not fly the RNP approach.
How?
One idea: Allow aircraft to arrive at different altitudes at HITIR. Use the additional
altitude to reduce the need for lift devices and thrust during the remainder of the
approach over residential areas. Especially appropriate for vectored flights.
When optimizing for noise, procedure designers should factor in weather
expectations, and should assume the wind direction, wind speed and
temperature that are most common when the procedures are to be deployed.
South flow is used in the cooler winter months and is only triggered when a
tailwind of 5 knots or more is expected.
L Modify
flight paths
Change RNP
path
Move RNP path North (over Bay not over other
cities) to reduce noise. Also disperse flights along
rails (Western rail and turning rail.)
Better yet, eliminate the RNP path which would
eliminate the rail.
Preliminary DB meter noise readings are indicating that the RNP path is louder
than the planes flygint the ILS path.
The tight turning radius seems to create more noise for many of these planes.
If no mitigation is accomplished for the RNP, then more and more planes will be
shifted to this very loud flight path.
This flight path has been built on efficiency only, and disregards the excessive
noise created for residents under this tight turning loop.
M Modify
flight paths
Move turn over
Bay
Move flights from the SW in their Northern turn
over the Bay. Current, published flight path exists,
but is no longer frequently used.
MV/LA consultant is working on a potential path.
Expanding the Northern loop only helps if it also means altitude is raised over the
cities.
- - Potential of moving noise over
another city or different group of
residents.
N Modify
flight paths
New path from
East
Create a new path that approaches airport from the
East.
An East approach leads to significantly less residential noise compared to South
flow flights approching from the West - flights approaching from the West fly
over at minimum 15 miles of dense residential areas. Eastern approachs would be
approx 1 mile of residential with the remainder generally industrial.
In 2015, an analysis of FAA FOIA data shows that 32% of the South flow flights
approached SJC from an easterly direction. This percentatge is decreasing with
time, and these planes are being "rolled" into the rail. These Eastern approaches
need to be preseved, and not reduced.
Examination of an East approach into SJC was recommended as a possible noise
mitigation by the FAA
The East route would shorten the path and increase flight efficiency for planes
originating from the East side of the United States
Planes already fly these East routes.
++ Moves South flow traffic from SJ,
Cup, SV & MV to over the Bay.
P Modify
flight paths
Community
defined flight
paths
Where does the community want the planes to fly?The community is united in asking for flights to be dispersed as they were prior to
2012.
2 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
Q Disperse
flights
Revert to pre-
2012 paths and
dispersion
Manually disperse flights paths to pre-2012 levels,
or create and publish multiple flight paths that will
accomplish similar dispersion such as reverting the
waypoints back to pre-2012 waypoints/flight paths.
The FAA stated that safety will always be better with an RNAV approach than
with vectoring. Is there a study that proves this claim? Also, health needs to be
considered along with safety. The health effects of fine particulate matter from
airplanes being concentrated on a narrow band of residents are being studied
and those findings should be factored in.
The prior dispersed flight paths were safe and successful for decades.
The current flight mix and volumen at SJC is similar to the mix and volume that
existe during the dot com boom so dispersion should be achievable again.
R Disperse
flights
New parallel
flight paths to
West
Create additional flight paths to the West of current
paths by vectoring planes toward different
locations along the Bay.
The objective is to reduce the number of flights flying the rail that takes planes
from JESEN to ZORSA and beyond along the same heading into Palo Alto. Planes
would be vectored off this rail at different locations and with different headings,
resulting in their crossing Hwy 101 at locations along its length.
- - Flights over the Santa Cruz mountains
are more turbulent.
S Disperse
flights
New parallel
flight paths to
East
(fan out flight
paths)
On the STAR Arrival procedures, recast ZORSA and
HITIR as fly-by waypoints. Relocate HITIR to be as
close to JESEN as possible or perhaps eliminate it. If
design criteria prohibit this, terminate the STAR
procedures at JESEN.
A fly-over waypoint concentrates flights. Today ZORSA is located to
accommodate the turning radius of the largest planes. As a fly-by waypoint,
smaller planes could turn sooner, dispersing the flights.
By moving or eliminating HITIR maximum dispersion would be possible after
JESEN.
Recasting ZORSA and HITIR as fly-by waypoints on the RAZRR and SILCN STAR
procedures would permit airplanes to begin their turns to the Bay as soon as
possible after JESEN, based on the turning radiuses of those airplanes and the
programming of their FMS'es. This would reintroduce some dispersion as planes
'peel off the rail' early and at different places.
T Disperse
flights
Automate
dispersion
Modify the NextGen system to automatically
disperse flights. Automated dispersion addresses
safety, efficiency, and noise.
Automated dispersion addresses safety, efficiency, and noise. It will create safe
dispersion. If flight dispersion is required, then technology to automate that
dispersion will be developed.
For effective noise mitigation, flight paths miles wide are needed (because of the
way airplane noise travels).
Dispersion will stop the rail from disproportionally impacting residents under the
narrow flight paths.
When residents purchased their homes, they made decisions based on historical
flight paths, now those flight paths have been shifted into narrow rails over
residents who previously had very few or no planes flying over thier homes. The
rails need to be broken.
++ Addresses safety, efficiency, and
noise.
U Disperse
flights
Use multiple
flight paths
Define multiple flight paths across the historic
corridor and rotate planes between them.
ATC would use each flight path in rotation so as not to burden any one
neighborhood with all the flights. The period of rotation would be hours or
maybe a day.
-- Too many routes to design.
V Disperse
flights
Charted visual
flight
procedures
Define a western charted visual flight approach
with the turn over the Bay. Define an eastern
charted visual flight approach.
FAA suggestion. Also an MV/LA consultant suggestion.
Pilots have more discretion when flying a visual approach than when flying RNAV
approaches.
Issue: Many airlines issue instructions that the pilots must use the regular
instrument approaches, however some airlines prefer a charted approach to
pilots flying with no defined approach over an area (as is the case today for MV
and Palo Alto for planes not flying the RNAV RNP approach).
++ Provides pilots with another flight
path.
++ More likely to be endorsed by airlines
and used by pilots.
++ Might align better with historical
flight corridor because an RNAV visual
approach permits a sharper turn than
RNP does.
- - Can only be used when visual
approach can be used which may be
limited when South flow is used and
weather causes low visibility.
3 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
W Disperse
flights
Revert final
waypoint to
PUCKK
Revert the final waypoint on the STAR procedure to
PUCKK. (On JAWWS TWO) This was the final
waypoint for SJC south flow in 2012.
Historically, planes missed the PUCKK waypoint far more than they hit it. The
expectation is that, going forward, almost all planes would peel off the procedure
before reaching PUCKK, recreating the earlier dispersion. Since JESEN was not a
waypoint when PUCKK was in use, flights were centered on a point ~0.25nm east
of JESEN.
X Disperse
flights
Revert final
waypoint to
JESEN
Revert the final waypoint on the STAR procedure to
JESEN (on JAWWS THREE). Remove HITIR, ZORSA
and flight headings after JESEN from airplanes'
Flight Management Systems databases. Encourage
ATC to disperse flights.
Airplanes change heading after JESEN. The idea is to allow airplanes to turn at
very slightly different times and possibly slightly different headings after JESEN to
break up the rail.
Y Disperse
flights Relax waypoints Give planes more flexibility around hitting the
waypoints.
The FAA Design Guide for OPD procedures advocates 'path flexibility' as a means
to enable airplanes to descend efficiently and at a quiet idle. The fewer
constraints in OPD paths and arrival procedures, the more freedom planes will
have to descend efficiently and quietly.
Z Disperse
flights
Move, eliminate
waypoints Move or eliminate waypoints.
The FAA Design Guide for OPD procedures advocates 'path flexibility' as a means
to enable airplanes to descend efficiently and at a quiet idle. The fewer
constraints in OPD paths and arrival procedures, the more freedom planes will
have to descend efficiently and quietly.
AA Disperse
flights
Approach
tailored to plane
size
Define different approach paths for large and
medium-to-small planes. An approach path could
be created after JESEN suitable for medium-to-
small planes. ZORSA could be used by large planes.
Large planes need a wider turning radius than small planes.
Multiple flight paths based on size would introduce some dispersion.
- - Return to historic corridor over
Sunnyvale.
- - Too many routes to design.
BB Disperse
flights
Efficiency or not
procedures
Define two sets of procedures – one for when
efficiency is demanded (which is more noisy), one
for when efficiency is not required (which is less
noisy).
During non-peak hours, noise-optimized procedures would be used.
CC Disperse
flights
Discourage
concentration
Discourage narrow, concentrated (single line) flight
paths. Stop eliminating discretionary paths.
Can ATC (Flight Controllers) do this?
How?
DD Penalize
noise
Expand noise
curfew hours
Change curfew hours to 10:00 pm - 6:30 am (from
11:30 pm - 6:30 am) perhaps just when using South
flow is being used.
Curfew hours only prohibit noisy flights from using the airport during those
hours. Quiet flight can still use the airport during curfew hours. Exceptions exist
for weather, mechanical, etc. issues.
SJC is grandfathered into having a curfew. No new curfews can be established.
Grandfathered curfews are not likely to allowed to change.
Which entity controls the curfew at the airport - SJC.
What would be done with the money collected - SJC collects.
How would changing the curfew impact the overall schedule for SJC - Very little.
Airport: Not directly related to south flow arrivals. The Federal Aircraft Noise Capacity
Act (ANCA) of 1990 controls Noise Ordinances. This act does not permit the enactment
of increased restriction to airport flight/noise restrictions without federal approval,
which has been withheld in all cases to-date. Given this, the Airport does not have the
authority to make the curfew more restrictive.
EE Penalize
noise
Increase noise
curfew violation
fines
SJC defines the fines and f\ines exist. $2,500 per occurrence, with many
exceptions granted. Very few aircraft are not allowed to fly at night.Airport: See answer to DD
FF Penalize
noise
Base landing
fees on noise
generated
during arrival
What would be done with the money collected?
How do we determine the definition of noise that should be charged a fee?
How can this be measured?
Airport authority controls the landing fees at SJC.
Airport: See answer to DD
4 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
GG Penalize
noise
Require Airbus
320 air
deflectors
Require Airbus 320 family to install “wake vortex
generators”
Other cities have done this.
Who controls the authority to require this?
UA started their retrofit in Nov 2017.
SJC can impose limits of use & fines.
At a recent SFO Roundtable, SFO staff suggested they had some ideas for how to
encourage airlines to install vortex generators if they were initially reluctant.
Discuss with them.
Airport: The SFO Select Committee made a recommendation that the FAA require
operators of the A320 family to install "wake vortex generators", however the FAA
response was that this was outside their area of authority. SJC estimates that roughly
6.7% of south flow flights are from this family of aircraft.
- - A given airline would have to do this
to their entire fleet of the aircraft type as
they don’t know which aircraft will end
up on a specific flight.
HH Penalize
noise
Require curfew
violation
reporting
Require flights landing during the noise curfew to
report online what is causing them to violate the
noise curfew in advance of their landing.
How will they know that a problem exists?
What is a quiet vs. a noisy procedure?
What is definition to use?
What would they do if it did?
Need to model noise and use model to decide if exceeded.
Easy to say that a 'safety' issue caused it.
At the Airplane Noise Symposium in Long Beach in late February, it was reported
that one airport had success with this approach.
Airport: Noise curfew violations are posted online.
https://www.flysanjose.com/noise-reports
II Reward
quiet Incentives Provide incentives to airlines to fly quieter.
Need to define definition of quieter. What incentives and how are they funded?
dBA is the accepted unit of measurement. Individual cities have their own limits
FAA has limits too, but allows "emergency procedures".
Airport: See answer to DD
JJ
Change SJC
operations to
reduce noise
Remove displaced
runway designation
Remove the displaced runway designation at SJC in
order to make use of full runway so that reverse
flow might not need to be used so often.
This may not be achievable because of the height of buildings in downtown SJ.
And, the community does not want a longer runway to lead to bigger airplanes.- - Very expensive
KK1
Change SJC
operations to
reduce noise
Use GBAS
GBAS (Ground-Based Augmentation System) is a
system that augments the primary airport systems
and provides enhanced management of all phases
of approach, landing, departure and surface
operations. It can result in differentiated landing
positions on a runway.
Is this still at the beginning (experimental) phase?
How long until this is ready for full use?
Airport: According to an FAA report dated September 2017 Honeywell has an
operational CAT I GBAS system available at Newark and Houston as Non‐Federal
systems (airport sponsored). Current airlines utilizing this system at these two airports
which also operate at SJC are United, Delta, Lufthansa and British Airways. However,
only select planes have the necessary equipment to utilize the system and runway
length matters. It's still very much in development and testing. CAT II/III systems are
not yet operational. Boeing is also testing a GBAS system.
Airport: Initial reports are that if a runway is long enough, it may lower overall noise
impacts in some communities due to the shifting of the approach path.
It's probably important to understand that the installations currently using GBAS or
piloting GBAS are all large hub airports, which serve as a hub for a commercial airlines
or are participating as part of R&D. As an example EWR and IAH are both hubs for
United Airlines, as is SFO, which is currently conducting a pilot program. Since this is a
non‐federal program the airlines and airports are paying not only for the installation
but also the maintenance of GBAS. These costs may be prohibitive for a medium hub
airport, especially one without an airline hub.
=-- SJC - While GBAS may potentially
lower noise around some airports, given
the flight path and runway length, it is
questionable if GBAS is feasible for SJC.
KK2
Change SJC
operations
to reduce
noise
Trigger when
greater than 5
knots
Trigger South flow operations when wind is at 6
knots, or 7 knots, or 8 knots, or 9 knots, or 10
knots. (Use highest safe value)
MV/LA consultant has indicated that the FAA is looking at increasing the trigger
to 10 knots at all airports.
There should be a special study commissioned by the FAA for SJC to determine
whether a limit of 6, 7 or more knots could be feasible given SJC's specific runway
length and other constraints.
FAA: The wind and FAA Order 7110.65 determine the active runway at SJC. In
accordance with paragraph 3-5-1 of FAA Order 7110.65, when there is a tailwind of 5
knots or more, SJC Tower must utilize RWY 12. This is the least favorable configuration
for both the Tower and TRACON and it is not utilized more than is necessary.
LL
Change SJC
operations
to reduce
noise
Monitor noise
Monitor noise North, East and West of the airport
at various distances from the airport on an ongoing
basis.
It is essential to understand noise (from monitors)
5 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
MM
Change FAA
operations
to reduce
noise
Stricter rules for
ground noise
FAA to change its procedure development process
to introduce optimization of proposed flight plates
for noise, even for changes that are not judged to
be 'significant'.
This might be a methodology change within the FAA process for review of
procedure changes.
Draft flight plates should be reviewed by a team of noise specialists to see if their
proposals can be further optimized for noise before publishing them for review.
The Committee heard from an FAA procedure designer that if a procedure is not
at risk of violating FAA noise thresholds, the designers need not optimize for
noise.
NN
Change FAA
operations
to reduce
noise
Change when
information is
provided to pilot
ATC must provides information to pilot sooner.
What Information?
How will this impact noise to our residents?
Is a safety consideration - need to keep pilot load light as possible on approach
and landing.
OO
Change FAA
operations
to reduce
noise
Model changes
for noise
Model all changes prior to implementation in order
to minimize noise impact on residents. Assume
varying weather conditions. Ground noise monitors
should be used to validate the models.
Use theoretical models and compare computer predicted flight maneuvers with
actual flight simulators to align with what pilots are really doing.
Ground monitors should be used to validate the simulation predictions.
To understand the real-world noise impact, varying weather conditions must be
assumed, particularly given the tight constraints imposed by Precision Based
Navigation (PBN).
PP
Provide SJC
with more
airspace
Reduce SFO
BDEGA West
arrivals into SFO
Route more SFO arrivals through the BDEGA East
over the Bay so that there are fewer BDEGA West
arrivals from the North. If moving SFO traffic
provides more space for SJC, utilize this for
dispersion purposes.
Balanced Runway usage is the goal. But the reality is that if a quieter runway is
free, they should use it.
QQ
Provide SJC
with more
airspace
Route SFO
SERFR South
arrivals over
South East
corner of Bay
Have SERFR South arrivals join DYAMD or fly a
similar route parallel to and/or above DYAMD. If
moving SFO traffic provides more space for SJC,
utilize this for dispersion purposes.
Could also address the noise problem of SJC BRIXX arrivals since BRIXX altitude
could be increased because SERFR would no longer be a constraint. BRIXX is a SJC
arrival route that flies under SERFR.
RR
Provide SJC
with more
airspace
Route SFO West
oceanic arrivals
to BDEGA over
ocean and
change vectors
of BDEGA West
arrivals
Have SFO oceanic arrivals from the West join
BDEGA over the ocean West of the Golden Gate
Bridge rather than use MENLO.
SJC South Flow would then only compete with
BDEGA West arrivals.
Vector BDEGA West arrivals to maximize vertical
and lateral separations for aircraft flying in opposite
directions (BDEGA flights going North and SJC
flights going South). If moving SFO traffic provides
more space for SJC, utilize this for dispersion
purposes.
This is the Golden Gate 7 approach
Must be done with adequate time to reprogram FMS.
++ Cost, if done soon after takeoff,
would be almost non-existent.
-- Last minute changes can impose
errors.
SS
Provide SJC
with more
airspace
SJC use SFO
space when SFO
changes pattern
Allow SJC to use some SFO airspace when SFO
changes their landing pattern, since SFO flights are
at high altitudes when they are close to SJC.
Needs to be coordinated with Nor Cal TRACON.
Need to carefully model all possibilities.
-- SFO might ask for more of SJC airspace
in return
6 of 7 5/25/2018
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
o
f
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Hig
h
L
e
v
e
l
Des
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
s
N
o
t
e
s
&
Que
s
t
i
o
n
s
FA
A
o
r
S
J
C
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
+
+
Pro
s
/
-
-
C
o
n
s
TT Other Create technical
working group
Create technical working group to study each of the
proposals in conjunction with the FAA. Present
findings and recommendations during ad hoc
committee meetings for full discussion and final
recommendations.
Roundtable at Cities Association which includes Santa Clara and Santa Cruz
counties. Should it also include Alameda county so cities in the East Bay that
currently have SJC traffic are included?
UU Other Airlines requests Ask the FAA to share what the airlines requested
when they asked for new procedures
VV Other Environmental
Assessment report
Ask the FAA to share the Environmental
Assessment report (data, analyses, and
conclusions) for the changes in the SJC south flow
procedures
WW Other Vectoring over
Palo Alto
Ask the FAA if the SJC south flow flights that are
vectored north to turn over Palo Alto come in and
out of SJC airspace
1) Do some of the SJC south flow arrivals that make their turn over Palo Alto
come in and out of the SJC Class C airspace? If yes, please specify the order of
magnitude (% of flights) and whether these flights are reported in some Safety
Reports.
2) Does the proximity of the PAO airport create a safety risk for SJC south flow
arrivals that make their turns at very low altitudes (at times below 2000 ft) over
parts of Palo Alto?
7 of 7 5/25/2018