Articles From The San Jose Mercury, Demonstrating How

Palo Alto Residents Are Captives

Of Pilots Who Fly Irresponsibly, and Unsafely.

Over the years, there have been any number of situations where pilots have “buzzed” pedestrians
in the general vicinity of the airport, or flown too low over residential properties. The City
government has been helpless to do anything, because the facility has been run by the County,
and the County has been irresponsible as an operator—not showing any interest in safe
operations of the pilots in the air.

The last article reports on the Palo Alto City Council’s agreeing to allow IFR (Instrument Flight
Rating) take-offs and landings at the airport, which increase the danger to residents in the
immediate area of the airport—such as those living in East Palo Alto whose homes were badly
damaged by the Feb. 17th, 2010, crash of a plane flying in inclement weather out of the Palo Alto
Airport. Had IFR take-offs/landings not been approved for this airport, then this fatal crash would
not have occurred.

The Palo Alto City Council seems to have shown very little interest in the safety of the residents in
Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park—when considering problems caused by irresponsible
behavior by pilots. The County Airport Administration seems to have even less concern for
people living under the flight paths of these General Aviation airports than the City of Palo Alto
has demonstrated in the past thirty years of the airport’s operation.

Given the propensity of City Councils to respond to their constituents before the residents, in
general, it’s difficult to believe that future City Councils will be inclined to consider safety as a
primary parameter for airport operations.

-----
AIRPORT 'BUZZING' BLASTED RESIDENTS DON'T RELISH HOT-DOG PILOTS' STUNTS
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
May 15, 1989
Author: LISA LAPIN, Mercury News Staff Writer

A handful of hot-dogging airplane pilots have been "buzzing" the Palo Alto Airport runway,
creating a safety hazard and angering people who use the neighboring baylands nature preserve
and duck pond.

The high-speed, low-altitude passes -- similar to the "flyby" maneuvers executed by Tom Cruise
in the movie "Top Gun" -- are also frustrating law-abiding pilots who fear their renegade
colleagues are giving the airport a negative public image.

Despite the outcry over the buzzing incidents, which have been occurring about once a week for
nearly a year, the Federal Aviation Administration officials authorized to discipline the pilots have
not issued one citation.

''We're getting the runaround," said Bob Whitworth, president of the Palo Alto Airport Association
who has complained to the FAA about at least six high-speed passes. "I don't know why they are
reluctant to punish these pilots who are jeopardizing the safety of everyone else and have no
regard for other people using the airport."

Whitworth said student pilots get flustered by the high- speed passes, and when practicing
takeoffs and landings, can't see an oncoming stunt plane. Wildlife is also disturbed by the
incidents, and baylands rangers report that flocks of birds are scattered by the low-flying planes.
The passes can also be deafeningly loud to people on the ground, which angers pilots who for
years have been fending off complaints from residents about airport noise.

''The aviation community in Palo Alto is very concerned that city residents view the airport
positively," Whitworth said. "But that's difficult when we have several pilots doing maneuvers that
damage the image of the airport."

Two weeks ago, a furious Palo Altan who had been feeding ducks at the pond marched into the
airport terminal to launch a complaint about a plane that had just buzzed by at 200 mph about 10
feet above the ground, then pulled up sharply in an aerobatic move.

The FAA declared that the action was not illegal, and the FAA Flight Standards Office in San
Jose only "counseled" the pilot.

''There usually isn't any enforcement action we can take," said Edge Ritter, the San Jose flight
standards manager who downplayed the hazard posed by the high-speed passes.

According to Ritter, the pilot in the April 28 incident had permission from the control tower to do a
"gear test," where a pilot flies by the tower so traffic controllers can check the plane's underside to
see that the landing gear is working.

''Except he didn't really do what he told the tower he was going to, and came in at a higher
speed," Ritter said. But because the tower had given permission for the approach, Ritter said the
FAA could not cite the pilot for a violation. Instead, the FAA reminds pilots of the "good-neighbor
policy" that urges them not to do anything that creates a community disturbance.

Ritter said Palo Alto Airport, with large numbers of birds and outdoor enthusiasts nearby, is a
place where the good- neighbor policy should be pursued.

Hank Barbachano, the Palo Alto control tower manager, said he has been frustrated with pilots
who take advantage of the air traffic controllers, who have no enforcement powers under aviation
law.

''My controllers do not under any circumstances clear a pilot for a high-speed pass," Barbachano
said. But he said that often "pilots will mask a maneuver as a gear check, then come in faster and
lower than expected."

Barbachano said that because of the frequency and sensitivity of the buzzing incidents, his tower
will now be stricter in questioning a pilot asking for a gear test. And the Santa Clara County
Transportation Agency, which administers the Palo Alto Airport, is expected to adopt a new rule
forbidding high-speed passes this month.

Those moves may help to deter the hot-dog pilots, but Barbachano was not optimistic the buzzing
would stop. "People think air traffic controllers are the cops of the sky, but we're not. That's really
up to the FAA."

Whitworth and other pilots are growing weary of each agency passing responsibility to the other,
and have taken their case to top FAA officials in Los Angeles as well as the National Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association.

About 500 pilots regularly use the Palo Alto Airport. Half of those are business and pleasure fliers.
The other half are students learning to fly.

The Palo Alto control tower estimates that only about four or five pilots are responsible for the
high-speed passes, and that they don't appear to be based in Palo Alto.
''People are coming from all over the Bay Area," said Palo Alto pilot Jack Stringer. "Word seems
to have gotten out that if you want to do a low flyby, Palo Alto is the place to do it. But then you
watch it happen and you kind of wince, because you know someone could get killed."

Memo: Shorter version ran P. 3B Morning Final Edition

Edition: Peninsula/AM
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: NEIGHBORHOOD PROTEST AVIATION SAFETY ABUSE PALO-ALTO
Copyright (c) 1989 San Jose Mercury News
Record Number: 8902080418

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:SJMB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB72FF
6C8458F05&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=682EC9CB78A84DBFBEED539E0A627
10E

PALO ALTO WON'T CLOSE AIRPORT APPROACH

San Jose Mercury News (CA)

November 12, 1986
Author: DANELLE MORTON, Mercury News Staff Writer

The sound of light planes will still be heard over the neighborhoods of western Palo Alto because
the city council has decided to keep that approach to the city airport open.

Residents in that area have complained about the noise for several years. In May the council
asked Santa Clara County to study the airport's traffic pattern and possibly eliminate its western
approach.

The city council on Monday unanimously upheld the county's recommendation that closing the
western approach would make the other approach unsafe. The council also asked the county to
continue to monitor airport noise and report back in a year.

Mayor Mike Cobb asked the pilots, who had complained that the noise problem was generated by
a few "bad actors," to more strictly police themselves.

The council also asked the county to develop a way to enforce existing laws governing airplane
noise.

Normally airport traffic towers have a five-mile radius of authority. Palo Alto Airport and Moffett
Field are only 4.8 miles apart, reducing the air space available to each and potentially causing a
safety hazard.

The county has authority to modify access to the airport to control safety and noise but these
changes must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The county study found:

(check) The Palo Alto Airport has an exemplary safety record, with only one major accident in the
last eight years, while Reid-Hillview Airport in San Jose has had six. Reid- Hillview has 25 percent
more traffic.

(check) Shutting off the airport's western approach would crowd its other approach and make it
unsafe.
(check) While noise complaints are legitimate, noise was not found to be a significant concern of
those living under the western flight path. The county only tallied 57 complaints this year.

The county has already altered the airport approach pattern on a trial basis to decrease the noise
generated by the 2,000 planes that use the airport as a base. It restricted some routes used in the
western approach and eliminated the departure that requires the pilot to make a 270-degree turn.

The Palo Alto Airport Association, an organization representing pilots, protested the county
recommendation, saying that eliminating part of the western or city side landing approach was the
equivalent of eliminating a left hand turn lane on a busy street.

''During peak traffic periods, having the city side pattern as a reliever is essential to an orderly
and safe landing process," an association report said.

Edition: Peninsula
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: AVIATION TRAFFIC PALO-ALTO COUNCIL
Copyright (c) 1986 San Jose Mercury News
Record Number: 8603300699

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:SJMB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB729B
BAB86B10D&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=682EC9CB78A84DBFBEED539E0A627
10E
--------

GROUP GRIPES ABOUT PLANES OVER HOMES

San Jose Mercury News (CA)

June 18, 1986
Author: BERNARD BAUER, Mercury News Staff Writer

A group of Palo Alto residents has been stymied in an effort to restrict airplanes from using a
flight pattern over their homes.

The residents began complaining three years ago about noise and potential safety problems at
the county-operated Palo Alto Airport, which is on Embarcadero Road east of the Bayshore
Freeway.
But airport personnel say they're not convinced the problem is as serious as the residents claim.

According to Jay Jaso, aviation director of the Santa Clara County Department of Transportation,
which oversees the airport, "there are a few people who are complaining a lot -- and not the
converse of that."

Louie Marincovich, a seven-year resident of Moreno Avenue in the area west of the airport, says
that's not true. He claims that about 100 other residents are as disturbed as he is by what he says
are dangerously low-flying planes.

''You eat dinner to the tune of aircraft coming in over your house," Marincovich said. "I think the
majority of people who you ask would be in favor of controlling the airplanes."

There are about 150,000 takeoffs and landings at the Palo Alto Airport each year, according to
Spalding. "It's a fair amount, considering the size of the airport," Jaso said.
Most pilots taking off from and landing at the Palo Alto Airport use flight patterns over San
Francisco Bay. But when air traffic is heavy, the control tower directs pilots to use a pattern that
goes over residential areas.

Marincovich claims that a few pilots who use the overland route fly too low, creating a great deal
of noise and endangering the residents below.

Federal Aviation Administration regulations require pilots using the airport to maintain a height of
at least 1,000 feet before crossing the freeway to begin their landings. For pilots flying west of the
freeway, the county requests -- but does not require -- pilots to fly maintain an altitude of 1,500
feet.

However, Marincovich says that he has seen planes fly as low as 100 to 200 feet.

''It's not only bad flying," he said. "It's sloppy air control."

Marincovich says that the air controllers at the Palo Alto airport are only concerned with the safety
of pilots, not with the safety of area residents.

''They simply haven't grasped that there's an overriding issue, and that's public safety," he said.

But Jim Spalding, supervising airport operations worker, says the pilots who use the airport
comply with minimum altitude requirements established by the FAA. In addition, he said, most
pilots heed the higher ceiling recommended by the county, which air controllers in the tower use
as their guideline.

''Most of (the pilots), when they're advised of that, obey the tower recommendation," Spalding
said.

Eliminating the overland pattern would actually decrease safety, said Ken Hunt, treasurer of the
Palo Alto Airport Association, which represents 1,300 pilots. If the ban is approved, planes waiting
to land from the bay side would stack up and be forced to circle over densely populated areas of
Palo Alto.

Kent also claimed that violations of altitude requirements are extremely rare.

''I think it's only a rare case that buzzes somebody's house," he said. "I can't imagine somebody
doing that over Palo Alto."

Marincovich said he began complaining of low-flying planes 3 1/2 years ago, and he is frustrated
that nothing has been done.

In March 1984, Marincovich says, he placed an ad in a weekly newspaper, including a clip-out

coupon for residents to voice complaints on the issue and mail to the Palo Alto City Council.
According to Marincovich, 100 coupons were mailed.

A group called the Palo Alto Airport Good Neighbor Committee, which is composed of residents,
pilots and airport personnel, also was formed in 1984. The committee has met several times to
discuss the issue, but there have been no concrete changes.

Last month, however, after a presentation by the committee to the city council, Palo Alto Mayor
Mike Cobb write to Jaso, requesting that the county study of the issue.

Jaso said that while he is "open to looking at" eliminating the overland route, "you can only have
so many aircraft backed up" over the bay. Getting rid of the land route "would eliminate what
(FAA officials) call a safety option. ''At the same time, we don't want to discount community
concerns."

According to Jaso, airport staffers have gone to the neighborhoods west of the airport to monitor
the situation, but they have not seen or heard low-flying aircraft.

''It's been alleged that there are aircraft flying overhead at 300 to 400 feet," he said. "That's
incredibly low. If the aircraft was flying that low, the phones would be ringing off the hook."

However, the airport logs just two to three complaints a month about low-flying planes, he said.

''I just want to separate out what's perceived and what's actual," Jaso said.

Edition: Peninsula
Section: Extra 1
Page: 1
Index Terms: AVIATION PALO-ALTO CONTROVERSY
Copyright (c) 1986 San Jose Mercury News
Record Number: 8602190145

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:SJMB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB728E
ADE56A3C8&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=682EC9CB78A84DBFBEED539E0A627
10E

P.A. AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINTS END, BUT STUDY DUE

San Jose Mercury News (CA)

September 27, 1988
Author: LISA LAPIN, Mercury News Staff Writer

Although almost no one in Palo Alto complains about loud airplanes anymore, the Federal
Aviation Administration will commission a $94,000 noise study of the city's airport.

Santa Clara County supervisors were scheduled today to approve a federal grant of $85,000 that
would pay for most of the work. The county also would contribute $9,400.

The county airport commission says a study is necessary because no one knows just where the
sound goes from the Palo Alto Airport, at the edge of the Baylands Preserve. Also, no criteria now
exist to determine whether planes exceed acceptable noise levels.

"The study is in keeping with FAA regulations," said Don Flynn, county director of aviation. "We
don't know what the parameters are out there. We don't have a basic assessment of the kind of
noise we should or shouldn't be hearing."

The Palo Alto Airport gets fewer than 20 complaint calls a year, causing some people to question
whether the $94,000 might be better spent elsewhere.

''I have some reservations about the effectiveness of a study, or the need for it at this point," said
Midge Vaughn, head of the airport community relations commission. "People just aren't as
concerned as they used to be."

Several years ago, low-flying airplanes that buzzed over Palo Alto neighborhoods did cause a
ruckus. In 1985, dozens of residents complained to the city council, and a "good neighbors
committee" was formed to look into the issue.

Since then, the problems appear to have been solved. Pilots formed a committee to monitor
themselves, using peer pressure to make sure no one flew low over homes. And take-off and
landing patterns were changed so that planes would be higher over residential areas.

''The complaints we get now are scattered widely over the whole Palo Alto area, and most aren't
from planes originating at the Palo Alto Airport," Vaughn said.

The noise study would look only at planes using the Palo Alto airfield, and on their impact in the
area within a few miles of the airport, Flynn said. It wouldn't examine noise from planes over most
parts of the city or the foothills around Stanford, where many complaints arise.

''I don't think some of the city's questions are going to be answered with this study," Vaughn said.

Vicci Rudin, assistant to the Palo Alto city manager, said that though the study funding came a
few years later than the crisis, the city is anxious to assess any information that might result.

''There is a lot of data we don't have," Rudin said. "We don't have a way to see if a pilot has made
an infraction."

The study would be conducted by a private consultant and would be completed within 18 months.

Edition: Peninsula
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: PALO-ALTO AVIATION PARK NOISE CONTROVERSY US GOVERNMENT;
STUDY
Copyright (c) 1988 San Jose Mercury News
Record Number: 8804200447

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:SJMB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB72E7
B7156946D&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=682EC9CB78A84DBFBEED539E0A627
10E
---------------

P.A. BACKS INSTRUMENT LANDINGS

San Jose Mercury News (CA)

October 7, 1994
Author: HOLLY A. HEYSER, Mercury News Staff Writer

Reversing a 10-year-old position, the Palo Alto City Council agreed this week to support efforts to
allow instrument landings at the Palo Alto Airport.

Pilots can take off from Palo Alto during bad weather using their instruments as guides, but they
cannot land that way. Airports must have the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration to
allow instrument landings.

For visual landings at Palo Alto Airport, regulations require three miles' visibility and a cloud
ceiling of no less than 1,000 feet. But pilots who are trained for instrument landings can get
around the requirement by making an instrument-guided approach to San Jose, Moffett or
Hayward airports, then doing what is known as "scud running" -- dipping under the clouds and
flying low into Palo Alto.

While such an approach is legal, it compresses the paths of planes that would normally approach
at varying altitudes into smaller spaces, said Ann Elsbach, general manager of the West Valley
Flying Club and member of the Palo Alto Airport Joint Community Relations Committee.
''The more people you have in that compressed area, the more risk there is," she said.

In 1984, the city council opposed allowing instrument landings at the city- owned, county-run
airstrip, in part because the commanding officer at the Moffett Naval Air Station opposed it. But
council members also feared that allowing instrument landings would lead to more daily flights,
longer hours of use and changing traffic patterns.

Pilots, however, haven't given up on instrument landings. This year, the community relations
committee and the Palo Alto Airport Association studied the concerns and concluded that
allowing instrument landings would not increase traffic significantly at the Palo Alto Airport.

''This is not going to generate a lot of use," said Nick Petredis, chairman of the community
relations committee. "It's just going to be nice to have."

Gary Thornton, chief of the Airfield Management Office at Moffett Field, said he doesn't oppose
the effort. Nor will he oppose it in the future, unless he is ordered to, or unless studies reveal that
allowing instrument landings at Palo Alto could cause a hazard.

''If they present a proposal to the FAA, the FAA will make a determination whether it's safe," he
said.

The city council agreed without discussion Monday to forward the request for allowing instrument
landings in Palo Alto. The mayor will now write a letter to the county board of supervisors, which
in turn would ask the FAA to study the proposal.

Petredis estimated that it would take at least a year to win approval.

Edition: Peninsula/Am
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: PALO-ALTO AVIATION FACILITY EQUIPMENT CHANGE
Copyright (c) 1994 San Jose Mercury News
Record Number: 9403080755

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:SJMB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB71DA
6B148F517&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=682EC9CB78A84DBFBEED539E0A627
10E