I attended my first Airport Roundtable Ground Based Noise subcommittee meeting today.  The group is composed of council members representing B'game, Millbrae and H'borough along with SFO employees, consultants, a County of San Mateo facilitator, a staff member from Supe Dave Pine's office and the ex-United pilot who is advising Jackie Speier on the problems we are having with horrid SFO take-off noise.  Things move slowly in government and this subcommittee is no exception–and when (if) they come up with any recommendations those will still need to slog through the full Airport Roundtable and eventually to some conclusion directed to SFO.

The discussion wended its way through the various noise measurements that are already recorded and how to add analysis of the low-frequency rumbling take-off noise that is keeping people awake starting at 10:30 pm and extending to 3 am on some nights.  Let's be clear–this is a community health threat that is much more immediate than much of what passes for environmental concerns in politics today.  I was encouraged by our rep, councilman Ricardo Ortiz, who has heard from locals that are clearly impacted.  And by Millbrae council woman Ann Schneider who is hearing back-blast noise in her kitchen which looks out directly on the new SFO hotel.  This latest addition to the SFO monolith may be a contributing factor to our discomfort.

SFO consultants HMMH have been tasked with assessing the recorded noise history from April 2013 and April and September 2014 since those are key dates when runways were reconfigured–another possible contributing factor to our discomfort.  The firm is also using a noise profiling application called SoundPLAN to try to figure out the give and take–the inputs and outputs– of the noise that is degrading our quality of life in the mid-Peninsula.  It involves profiling the jet engine back blast, the terrain in our towns, the buildings that may be reflecting the noise and even the possibility that groves of trees might attenuate the noise.  Councilwoman Schneider provided a laundry list of the future construction in Millbrae around the BART station and that is when the light-bulb when on for councilman Al Royse from Hillsborough.  I'm paraphrasing, but Al's fresh insight was essentially "you mean to say that all of these new, high-rise, transit-oriented-development buildings might actually increase the diffusion of runway noise in our communities?"  Bingo.  Al gets today's prize for putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4.

What we really need is a greater sense of urgency from everyone involved.  As I type this at 11:35 pm the low-frequency back blast noise is bad.  I could pull out the thesaurus and find a stronger synonym, but I'm sticking with "bad".  Here is today's subcommittee meeting.

The results from the airport noise monitoring station that SFO installed in my very own yard for two weeks have come back.  You can see the equipment and some of the background here.  The monitoring was continuous around-the-clock, but I also kept track of 15 incidents that I found to be disturbing and gave them to the Airport Noise Abatement Office (ANAO).  They kindly correlated these incidents with specific flights and their parameters.

Without getting into too much technical detail about A-weighted vs C-weighted (for low frequency sound) or the peak noise level of an event (Lmax) or the Sound Exposure Level that compresses the noise energy into one second, the measurements show:

The monitoring site at the Burlingame Park Neighborhood is relatively quiet with ambient noise levels of 48dBA, considering that most of the neighborhood is in an urban community setting. On an average day, there were 229 overflights, out of which 65 exceeded the noise monitor threshold and recorded a noise event. These events included departing aircraft engine start, ground idling, take-off thrust and initial climb thrust. Runways 01-Left and 01-Right departing aircraft accounted for the vast majority of the noise events recorded by the monitor.

The majority of SFO Aircraft noise events occurred between 12:00 am and 2:00 am, 5:00 am and 8:00 am and 5:00 pm through 11:59 pm. On average, there were 26 nighttime noise events during the duration of the monitoring session.

For this measurement the average aircraft generated Maximum Noise Level (LCmax) was 73dBC and the average Sound Exposure Level (LCE) was 83dBC.

The 15 events I flagged to the ANAO were mostly between 11 pm and 1:30 am since rousing myself to send myself a text to capture the exact time wasn't advisable around 3 am when some really bad events occur.  Two examples of the correlation are:

11:02 pm: A Qantas Airways’ Boeing 747-400, Flight QFA074 to Sydney, Australia, started its takeoff roll on runway 28L at 11:01:35 pm. The LMax was 68.7 dB, the SEL was 76.2 dB and the event was 42 seconds long.   (28L is one of the two the long runways that takes planes over Brisbane).

11:50 pm: An American Airlines’ Airbus A321, Flight AAL2902 to Charlotte started its takeoff roll on Runway 1R at 11:50 pm. The LMax was 65.1 dB, the SEL was 77.1 dB and the event was 40 seconds long.  (Runway 1R is the southern short runway that is closest to Burlingame at its origin).

As part of our on-going legal action that has yielded a partial "win" as described here, one of the challenges we have is convincing a judge that "substantial changes" in airport operations have occurred.  If that can be shown, then the idea that only people who have owned their homes since before 1980 can claim damages becomes invalid.  So I read with some interest the SF Chronicle article from Sept. 13 about pilots transposing the runway numbers that they punch into their computers that then determine from the runway length how fast to get airborne.  It's a fascinating and somewhat scary read, but the part that might shed some light on our run-up and back-blast concerns is

By registering runway 10L instead of 01L, the pilot made the computer system think it had 4,220 feet more runway than it actually had, investigators found. Runway 10L is 11,870 feet long; 01L is 7,650 feet. The computer alerted the captain to use the lowest thrust and flap settings, common for longer runways to reduce impact and wear on engines, the memo stated.

It resulted in a “takeoff with 400 feet of usable takeoff distance remaining,” the FAA memo concluded. A typical commercial airliner is traveling at 184 mph at liftoff, meaning the plane had about 1.5 seconds before reaching the end of the SFO runway.

After the incident, the airline reconfigured its planes’ computer systems, such as removing the slowest takeoff speed as an option at SFO.

That seems like a relevant change to highlight to the judge–which we will do as Round 2 of the complaints take place in Redwood City on November 5th.

Many of the remaining 39 plaintiffs gathered in Small Claims court in Redwood City this morning to hear Judge Cristina Mazzei's ruling on our claims against SFO for runway noise.  You can read the background here.  The judge went the extra mile to render her decision live instead of the usual notice-by-mail.  We will have the full text of her ruling later, but I was scribbling madly so I could give you the main points.  I'll update it when I have all of the details.

As she started to speak about how the runway, back blast noise was "clearly bothersome" but also "known at the time of the purchase of the homes" I prepared for a denial of our claims.  When she noted that the airport operations were mostly the same over time (i.e. no new runways or flight patterns) that sense was heightened.  She noted that we had not provided expert testimony that operations had changed which is true.  She then reviewed the results of several prior lawsuits at other airports concluding that Civil Code 3482 was "not a total defense" for the City of San Francisco and SFO.  Her review of 49 USC 47506 "Limitations on recovering damages for noise" reminded everyone of the city's defense that anyone who purchased their home after 1980 was precluded from collecting damages unless certain conditions are met.  Many of us have thought at least a couple of the conditions had been met, but she apparently disagreed.

In a split decision, the judge awarded damages as requested ($2,500 each) to nine plaintiffs who bought their houses before 1980 and denied the rest.  It took awhile to digest the split decision as the team met afterwards.  It seems a bit contradictory to me (and the team) as the judge appears to say that there is a continuing nuisance, it's damaging to the enjoyment of people's property, SFO is liable for this damage, but only if someone has owned their home for 40 years or more.  As I said, many of us thought conditions had changed to obviate the 1980 limit.  Once we have the full text and get some legal advice (something we have not done, but the City of SF clearly has done), we will hopefully be better positioned for Round 2 of claims.  That will start soon.  In the meantime, we wait to see if SF appeals the decision or decides that $22,500 is a small enough amount to let the sleepless dogs lie.  I will also have more detailed information from the monitor I had for three weeks.

For the next two weeks I have my very own SFO-provided noise monitor in my yard.  You will recall that I accepted the offer during my meeting with the team at the Noise Abatement office.  The team installed it last Friday and I am looking forward to the specific measurements and the human correlation with flights that this stream of data enables.  This past Tuesday night was particularly bad and, lo and behold, last night was pretty quiet.  The noise abatement team attributes the differences to the weather – warm temps and clear skies are good, colder temps or cloudy skies are bad for noise.  If that proves true then the question becomes how to modify airport operations accordingly.  Operations change due to weather all the time, so perhaps this input can be accommodated as well.

Here is the microphone and the computer case that is recording a steady stream of noise data.  The thresholds to filter what to analyze have been set at 57 dB from 7am to 10pm and 52 dB in the nighttime.  In the meantime, the waiting for the verdict continues.

I also got a great tip from the SFO team about a free app called Flightradar24 that quickly pinpoints your location, maps all of the planes (on the ground and in the air) and allows you to see the flight information for each icon.  It's very cool to know where the plane over your house came from or is going.

I spent two and a half hours at the SFO Noise Abatement Office as a follow-up to the questions I asked at the last Court session about noise data.  My host, David Ong, was very helpful– cordial, informative and curious to hear about my concerns.  One couldn't ask for more at this point in the proceedings.  We discussed the arrival and departure routes at length, using their system to graph sets of data for specific dates and windows of time including my least favorite-12 am to 4 am.  It turns out that late night departures are not predominantly Asian flights or cargo, but often head to Chicago, Detroit, etc to make early morning connections.  We reviewed the timing around the Runway Safety project that added a new runway surface at the ends of the north-south runways and noted when they reopened August 10, 2014 as you can see from the graph below with the green V-shaped departures reappearing on 1L and 1R.  One theory is after a summer without traffic on those runways the reopening may have sounded louder to residents.  I can't really agree with as a cause of our distress now simply because it was five years ago, but I'm sure it had some short-term effect in 2014.

We also discussed how the international terminal Gate G which has a lot of Boeing 777 "heavy" traffic is situated such that engine-start-up is pointed towards B'game.  If it is determined that 777 start-up is a notable cause of noise, there might be other locations that would work.  I was particularly interested in the noise we experienced on Mother's Day this year.  It was quite bad in my yard, but the peak noise measurements at the two North B'game monitoring stations didn't really show what I know I heard.  SFO has awarded a contract to replace the 15 year old noise monitors with new technology and one can only hope that 15 years of technical advancement brings as much improvement in microphones as it has in other products.  I will be getting a short-term noise monitor installed in my yard in July with better noise correlation that is done by a person using the actual recordings as opposed to the system algorithm and NOAA radar data about take-offs.  It should be interesting although I am under no illusion that it will fix anything other than my curiosity.

Mr. Ong puts a lot of hope on the Airport Roundtable's ground noise subcommittee being able to isolate the main cause(s) of the runway noise so that something innovative can be done to mitigate it.  I hate to conclude with "we shall see", but that is where we're at.

The plaintiffs and the defendant (the City of SF) wrapped up their arguments about SFO runway noise in Small Claims court on Tuesday.  You can catch up on the background here and here.  It's quite impressive to see so many residents apply their skills to adding to the complaint.  We had members of the plaintiff group provide detailed noise measurements showing noise as high as 84.7 dB, providing background on the legal cases from around the country that might apply, and offering survey results from 360 people showing that the 49 current plaintiffs are far from the only ones feeling the damage from back blast noise.

At the end of Round 2 the defense tried to avoid having the Noise Abatement Office systems manager even take the stand, but Judge Mazzei ruled that we should be able to ask questions of him about his written declaration and the operations of the Office.  Mr. David Ong was on the stand for about 90 minutes and we learned some interesting, if disappointing, things during that time.  The Noise Abatement office takes about 200,000 complaints (they call them "reports") per month.  That effectively blew a giant hole in their argument that the 49 plaintiffs are just a small group that is not representative of the rest of the Millbrae, B'game and H'borough populace.  The illogic seemed lost on the SFO representatives.

We also learned that the airports Fly Quiet program that has been in effect for 15+ years rates airlines on five criteria that do not include back blast noise and that some of the lower scoring airlines, like Quantas, have been low scoring for a long time and SFO expects them to continue scoring low.  There are small fines in place for when a pilot does a "run-up" in an unapproved area of the taxiways, but Mr. Ong did not know if any fines had been assessed, nor whether they are published to groups like the Community Roundtable (which B'game councilmember Ricardo Ortiz sits on).  He also did not know what happens if an airline does not pay the fine or if there are other actions that merit fines.  We all found that quite odd for a senior member of the Noise Abatement Office.

There are 29 permanent noise monitoring stations sprinkled in the three cities and San Mateo.  They have been there for decades and Mr. Ong believes they do not show any appreciable increase in noise over the last three or four years (a key part of our claim).  I have asked to see the actual data since the group finds that hard to believe given the increased traffic and our collective experiences.  We will see if the data corroborates that, if we ever get it.

As the session came to an end, the judge said she would ordinarily have the Court mail us the verdict in a week or two, but she will be doing it differently for this case. She said she was allowed 90 days to announce her verdict once the case was under submission.  She has "a lot to read over". Then she said we'd all be getting a notice of when her decision would be announced in court with so the plaintiffs could be present.  Lots of people are sitting with their fingers crossed.

Voice readers can catch up on the effort by 49 Burlingame and Hillsborough residents to get some relief from SFO runway noise here and in the two prior links in that post.  The 49 plaintiffs have filed in Small Claims court and have presented their complaints in four sessions in Redwood City, so Tuesday was the airport's turn to present its defense.  We heard two and a half hours of testimony from an outside noise expert and an airport environmental planner that never really got to the root of the complaints– that back blast or "run up" noise is damaging our quality of life– mostly sleep, outdoor activities and doors and windows shaking.

One plaintiff started an on-line survey that now has 205 responses and found substantial concern around the clock.  15% of these residents are disturbed by SFO runway noise all day long and 58% disturbed during regular home hours of either 1-5 or 5-10 hours per day.  More than half of these families suffer between 6pm to midnight;  9pm-midnight is the worst and almost 30% suffer 12-5am and 30% also suffer from 5-8am.  The rest must have some pretty good sleeping pills……

SFO's defense hits on the following points:

• Various ordinances say they only need to mitigate noise where a 24-hour average called CNEL is above 65db.   That is a tight zone according to SFO's computer model and none of the 49 residences are in that very tight zone around each set of runways.  There appears to be minimal actual field measurements and no accounting for the 15-30 second blasts that are the essence of the complaints.
• The FAA, not SFO, controls all airline operations including taxiing and run-up (in contradiction to what some residents have been told elsewhere).
• Runways 1L and 1R were moved south by 450’ and 200’ respectively at around the time that people felt runway noise became worse, but the airport claims that is such a small distance that it has no noise effect.
• The runway safety project that added a "run away plane" section to the runway called EMAS at the ends of the runway has no noise effect.
• No form of noise barrier exists that would address our complaint as the noise source and the hearing parties need to be very close to the barrier (meaning a few yards not the one to five miles of the plaintiffs' homes).
• Prior legal action means anyone who bought their home after Feb 18, 1980 has no ability to file a claim.  This claim ignores the limits put on that ruling that make it inapplicable if airport traffic increases or configurations change–which they have over almost 40 years.

Oddly enough, the next witness to testify for the defense before we ran out of time Tuesday was the head of the Noise Abatement Center.  While the airport tried to slide through without him taking the stand, the judge insisted he at least take plaintiffs questions so he will return to court on June 11th at 9 am.

Here is the court house door with the plaintiffs' roll.