Point Loma Residents Mobilize Against Proposed New Flight Paths by FAA for Lindbergh

by on October 2, 2015 · 53 comments

in Environment, Health, Ocean Beach, Organizing, San Diego

Pt Loma FAA changes mapAct2Public Meeting at Liberty Station – Tuesday, Oct 6

Point Lomans are mobilizing against new airline flight paths being proposed for Lindbergh Field by the FAA.

Opponents of the changes say that the new flight paths would take most planes over Point Loma for a second time. Currently, most planes take-off from Lindbergh going west and fly over the Peninsula – but then take a U-turn south of the Point and continue east.

Maps made public either via the media or opponents show that their concerns are valid.

Pt Loma FAA changes 9-11-15 meet

Screen capture from Channel 8 news of meeting, 9-11-15

Point Loma residents crammed a September 11th community meeting with their complaints. Casey Schnoor of Hill Street has website against the FAA changes that includes an online petition – noplanenoise.web – and of this writing has  nearly 2400 signatures.

Pt Loma FAA changes map

Channel 8 representation of the current flight paths – in red – and the proposed changes – in green. Screen capture.

Public Meeting – Tuesday, Oct 6

Plus, they are mobilizing for a public community meeting featuring staff from the FAA from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 6 at McMillin Event Center, 2875 Dewey Road in Liberty Station.

San Diego residents will have an opportunity to get information about the FAA’s proposed SoCal Metroplex.

Deadline for written public comments – Oct. 8th

The deadline to submit written public comments on the draft assessment through the FAA’s website is Thursday, Oct. 8. Links to view the Airport Authority’s comments, information on the project, and draft EA can be found at www.san.org/metroplex.

Here’s what Casey Schnoor’s Petition states:

The NextGen proposal to delete the waypoint near the tip of Point Loma will allow eastbound airplane traffic departing San Diego International Airport (“SAN”) to intersect Point Loma, flying directly over the point as they turn to the left from the westbound runway to their easterly route.

According to Exhibits provided by the FAA, the proposal includes the elimination of a waypoint currently located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the tip of Point Loma (“LOWMA”) that eastbound departing planes must pass to its south.  The elimination of LOWMA shortens the required turn radius allowing planes to travel closer to and/or over the top of Point Loma.

This results in a shortcut that will reduce the distance traveled in an eastbound direction by approximately 650 yards (0.12 miles).  As the Exhibit shows, the revised path would allow planes to travel over the top of Cabrillo National Monument, Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery and Point Loma Nazarene University.  The reality of this is that the distance “saved” equates to a rounding error, generates no fuel savings on even the shortest eastbound destinations and without question would have a negative impact on these and other Point Loma properties.

Any alleged benefits or the attainment of the program’s goals for fuel savings or carbon savings expected to result from this specific SAN departure flight path realignment will be negligible, if at all, and come at the significant cost of, among other issues, noise, visual, air and water runoff pollution to those residential, public grade schools, college, national park and national cemetery areas of Point Loma not already impacted and an increase of these symptoms to those areas already impacted inside the radius of the departure flight path.

Therefore, for the above concerns and highly questionable benefits, we urge the FAA to exclude any modification of the SAN departure flight path, including the proposed elimination of waypoint LOWMA from any FAA or NextGen proposal.

Pt Loma FAA changes mapAct

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

Avatar CliffHanger October 2, 2015 at 6:15 pm

Editor Dude – where is our elected representation on this mess?

Reply

Avatar PL Local October 3, 2015 at 6:59 am

When they say “Ohh it won’t effect us, The planes will be so high by then”

But then daily I see and hear, DOZENS of planes TAKING OFF over Point Loma, turning near Point Loma Ave and going straight down Catalina.

I don’t know what Mayor Kevin Faulconer (As a Point Loman) is doing. Maybe he is thinking about making a move to LA too.

F*ckNoisePollution

Reply

Avatar CliffHanger October 3, 2015 at 7:49 am

New proposal:
Arriving flights over the Pacific come in south of Point Loma, turn around over La Mesa to head west and land.
Departing flights take off as they do but instead turn to the RIGHT to go inland, eastbound over La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe.

Reply

Avatar D October 6, 2015 at 11:33 pm

So that makes it better to put it over someone else’s property. Did you forget that Miramar is over there and that probably won’t mix well with their arrival/departures? The departure paths are nearly the same and the News 8 map is ridiculous! No aircraft could EVER turn the way he has it depicted; complete idiocy and misrepresenting the information from someone that has zero background to present the facts! Typical media. So lets compare Apples to Apples!

Reply

Avatar Rufus October 3, 2015 at 8:12 am

It’s funny when people complain about airport noise but boast to their friends about how conveniently close they live to the airport.

It’s also funny how crappy our memory is.

I’ve lived in OB for 60 years. I remember when Stage 1 airplance flew low over my house, rattling my windows. I would have to pause while talking on my old landline telephone when a plane flew overhead.

Today’s airplanes make a small percentage of the noise their predesessors made. The jets are part of the background noise of a city. The airport predates most homes in OB and PL. lots of folks have gladly accepted public money to improve the noise resistance of their homes.

Get over it

Reply

Avatar CliffHanger October 3, 2015 at 8:52 am

Heaven forbid anyone suggests something might be done better only because someone remembers when it was worse. That’s a brilliant avenue to progress…

So, by that argument:
Today’s cars make a small percentage of the pollution their predecessors made. Let’s not advocate we keep reducing that.
Today’s x-rays generate a small percentage of the radiation their predecessors made. Good enough, zap away!
Today’s San Diego River effluent dumps a smaller percentage of the toxic crap into OB beaches than it used to. Yippee. Go hop in the surf after it rains, I guess.

The OB Rag serves as our local neighborhood watchdog on many issues and this one is totally right for us to hop on that bandwagon. You’ve probably been there many times before.
Get on it.

Reply

Avatar PL Local October 3, 2015 at 11:23 am

You tell us to “Get over it” Sounds like an crappy thing to say.

There is a reason why OB / Loma Portal house prices are so low. It’s because they are directly in the flight path. Us homeowners in Point Loma chose to live here because there IS no noise from air planes. Point Loma house prices cost $100k+ more than in OB / Loma Portal. We bought our house so we wouldn’t hear the noise. And now they change the flight path so that you don’t hear the noise as much and we do.

Because this benefits you more and harms us you tell us to “Get over it”. Way to go bro.

Reply

Avatar Rufus October 3, 2015 at 9:04 am

Just saying that the level of whining out there isn’t in proportion to the problem.

Airplanes have been a part of OB life since the begining and the level of noise has been cut significantly.

Time to move on.

Reply

Avatar PL Local October 3, 2015 at 11:24 am

Yes. Apart of OB life.

Not apart of Point Loma life.

Shut up with your comments and open your eyes.

Reply

Avatar Pam October 3, 2015 at 9:47 am

I’m confused. Every plane that takes off flies over my house and when the weather changes most of them land over my house as well. I’m late to this issue and ill-informed but if anything about this allows some of the burden to be spread across Ocean Beach and Point Loma I’m all for it. And by the way, I also remember the window rattling noise and I agree it’s much improved. In the early 80’s I lived on Lotus St, and once instinctively dropped to the kitchen floor because the jet overhead was so incredibly loud I thought it was crashing.

Reply

Avatar Christo October 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm

You do understand that the whole reason your rent at the beach cost less here relative to other beaches was the airport- right?

I moved here under the flight path too. Once I could afford it, I moved away from it. I purchased my home and paid a premium to NOT be under the flight path. That is now changing- quite unfair.

Reply

Avatar D October 6, 2015 at 11:39 pm

It is not changing and Ms. Pam is correct. The aircraft are not as loud as they were in the past. However, the unfair part is that after 10pm the elite in Point Loma insist on pushing ALL aircraft departures towards the northwest into one single departure stream. Why are the residence straight out from the airport more important than the people north? This has been the case for decades!

Reply

Avatar Pam October 7, 2015 at 3:32 pm

I do own my home here in NE OB and love where I live. I loved it even more before the two multi-million dollar McMansions were built across the street from me and my ocean view became accessible only through their living room windows. Perhaps this side of OB will need to become more gentrified, as is your side, Christo, before we’re considered to be worthy of consideration. I’m pretty used to the noise and it is definitely quieter than it used to be. I do wonder about that jet that comes in every morning at about 4:00 AM. Fed X? Whatever it is it’d be nice if it could move a few blocks in another direction once in a while.

Reply

Avatar Christo October 7, 2015 at 3:39 pm

Pam- Better if the airport was closed to regularly scheduled landings just like takeoffs.

Rent or own- the price you paid took the flight patterns into account. As did mime.

Reply

Avatar b October 3, 2015 at 10:05 am

I bet its a cost savings to the airlines on fuel, even thou they still go a fuel surcharge..

Reply

Avatar Carmen Lohn October 3, 2015 at 11:13 am

The flight pattern is already bothersome and it starts from 6:30am until 11. I can not
Handle more planes or any more direct flights over my home. The noise is super
Loud and you can’t enjoy TV or a normal conversation with anyone or while
On your phone! Noise pollution sucks!

Reply

Avatar ar92107 October 4, 2015 at 10:07 am

My ears literally hurt sometimes from the piercing sound when I’m walking dogs to dusty Rhodes. Seriously how hasn’t the airport gotten sued before. Help me understand how the voters turned down the proposition to move the airport in 2004? It’s strait up noise pollution and those suffering are the lower income members in ocean beach/ point Loma.

Reply

Avatar Goatskull October 5, 2015 at 12:47 pm

While the changes happening are one thing, you moved to where you live now knowing full well of the noise by moving near and airport and/or under a flight path. If you didn’t realize this than that’s on you for not doing due diligence.

Reply

Avatar D October 6, 2015 at 11:45 pm

Excellent Point! Also, people keep saying they can’t handle more flights over their houses… uh, what?

Reply

Avatar bad kitty October 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for those living along the Point Loma hills in their million dollar homes.
However, if the information in Casey Schnoors petition is correct?…there is no real benefit / advantage to changing the current routes.
p.s….although, I do admit – it is fun to watch those people squirm over the idea of “noise” coming to their homes….haha
sincerely,
corner of Lotus & Sunset Cliffs
I love OB

Reply

Avatar Goatskull October 5, 2015 at 12:48 pm

Yeah I’m not losing too much sleep either

Reply

Avatar Tom 2 October 5, 2015 at 8:28 pm

I, too, am not losing any sleep over this. From what I can see, this proposed change has almost no effect on flight times and fuel consumption, but also almost no effect on the ground below, either.

The law (passed by Congress) is pretty specific on the legal definition of a “significant impact”: a difference of 1.5dB or more AT SOUND LEVELS ABOVE 65dB DNL. I looked at the results of their sound modeling (numbers and their kml data grids available at: http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/socal_metroplex/socal_docs.html and http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/socal_metroplex/noise_san_diego.kml ). Nowhere do they estimate an increase of 1.5dB, and the area exceeding 65dB is pretty limited (the area of the quieter homes program). When the planes turn around and fly SE over Cabrillo National Monument, they will be already high enough to not affect measurable sound levels. Look at the elevations in the flight paths captured at http://www.noplanenoise.com/actual-flight-paths-captured-by-neigbors/
That’s why NPS hasn’t commented on this proposal or attempted to negotiate with FAA: there simply _aren’t_ significant effects on Cabrillo N.M. given the existing non-Lindbergh Field noise. The hundreds of flights per day that are audible at Cabrillo will continue to be North Island departures on 29 or 18 or (rare but louder) 11, and low helicopters & small planes going around the end of the point below the commercial airspace. Under the FAA’s proposed change, CABR stays at ~49dB in their weighted daily metric, Ft. Rosecrans at 47dB, the wooded area stays ~45dB, PLNU 45dB, Loma Portal Elementary 68dB. Nothing out toward the end of the point shows an increase in DNL. Dusty Rhodes increases from 62.5 to 62.6dB, which suggests a slight change in the proportion of departures that veer right slightly over Collier vs. veer left slightly and pass over the end of the pier.

Those flights that make a 250deg turn and head NE over the airport already have some exception from the usual route waypoints (I’m not a pilot so I don’t know how that works; I’d like to hear from a pilot who could explain how the waypoints work). Dropping LOWMA doesn’t change that: under the proposal the waypoint ZZOOO on Silver Strand replaces LOWMA, so they still can’t loop back to the NE that soon without a substantial deviation from the waypoints. [In the SoCal Metroplex Draft EA Procedures – San Diego Area kml http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/socal_metroplex/sandiego.kml compare:
Proposed action procedure routes SAN IIBEE SID for new
No action alternative procedure routes SAN POGGI3 SID for current]

Reply

Avatar D October 6, 2015 at 11:58 pm

Excellent!! Thank you for your accurate and well presented information! Much better than the fiction the News had on today!!

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 8, 2015 at 3:29 pm

EXACTLY.!! PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO EVERYONE…
People like to over exaggerate and imply that everybody is lying to them because they have nothing to do…
You are absolutely right, the planes will be closer to the coast in their turn and by the time they turn they will be at 3,000 plus feet altitude….I live in OB on the top and I hear them very little over my house at 2,000 feet….
Once they are over Cabrillo and the south of the peninsula the planes may be going above Cabrillo vs south of the peninsula on the ocean, BUT by then they are at 8,000- plus feet in altitude…you will be lucky to even see them….let alone hear them…

Reply

Avatar Holly October 6, 2015 at 1:16 am

You all are a bunch of bitching nobodies…be thankful you pay such a low rate to live in such an amazing part of San Diego…whether it be Point Loma or Ocean Beach, it’s all the same peninsula…get over yourselves…

Reply

Avatar Larry Maggard October 6, 2015 at 8:35 am

1) Where are the promised double-pained windows?
2) How is this “proposed” flight path going to effect the waiting list?
3) When is Fed-Ex going to replace the DC-10 that flies over at 10:20pm? It sounds like it’s gonna just stop and drop out of the sky.

Reply

Avatar D October 6, 2015 at 11:50 pm

They are fly a DC10 anymore! Maybe an MD11 which is similar but a little more powerful so climbs much better.

Reply

Avatar cade October 28, 2015 at 1:16 pm

D, if you meant FedEx doesn’t fly DC-10’s anymore you are very wrong. Please look it up one or look flight aware.com to see the routes FedEx Dc-10’s fly.

Reply

Avatar Christo October 28, 2015 at 1:35 pm

It’s an MD-11.

Same configuration, but a stretched fuselage, increased wingspan with winglets, refined airfoils on the wing and smaller tailplane, new engines and increased use of composite materials along with a glass cockpit that reduces crew from 3 to 2.

If you think that MD11 is loud- the DC10 was worse.

Reply

Avatar Tom 2 October 6, 2015 at 1:33 pm

1) still being installed around Loma Portal, apparently slowly expanding out by the contours of the sound map and the duration of present ownership. One house on Wisteria Dr. was done this summer, and at least one more has had the scoping visit.
2) very little if at all. The folks further out the point still won’t be near the magic 65dB DNL, the relative sound levels of the homes in the 60-68dB DNL band won’t change much (although all might increase a bit with more flights).
3) that would be wonderful, but I suspect the lower fuel prices make it _less_ likely. DC-10s have large loads and are cheap to lease or owned; replacements are expensive but have better fuel efficiency. If fuel goes up high enough they may switch/upgrade aircraft.

Reply

Avatar South OBcean October 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm

They already take shortcuts, so this should be enforced before even considering changing any rules.

Aside fro this, they should just implement the new waypoints without notice for a 30-day period and see if anyone even realizes it, after which we don’t have to guess at the impact. Otherwise it sounds more like a global warming debate… Regardless, no one in south PL is gonna be ok with it, nor should they.

A shorter path will absolutely save some amount of fuel. How much? Are we gonna get cheaper tickets?

Reply

Avatar Jerry Hall October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm

Is it true someone said public comments weren’t available in transcribed form? Is there published video or audio of the meetings?

Reply

Avatar shelly schwartlander October 8, 2015 at 4:43 am

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) simply appeared, mumbled lshowed a picture on a screen & fulfilled a requirement which was provide the public with an “opportunity to comment”. (later) /They didn’t want to record or document, so
here is the address they gave us on strips of paper as we left, the FAA Email:
9-ANM-SoCalOAPM@faa.gov
Use it! Share it! Deadline 2:00 pm today, 10/8/15. Any reason you object to planes flying over Pt. Loma’s middle, and the Point for each trip rather than making the “turn” out over the water as they do now is the COMMENT that will be on the record. It’s the ONLY WAY TO GO ON THE RECORD. Forget FAA giving another meeting, they’re done with us. They said send your comment by e-mail to their HQ.
Instead of recording comments made there in person on 10/6/15 and being responsible themselves they insisted it be done by e-mail AFTER the meeting. but by 2:00 pm today, 10/8/15. That’s it. Add your voice to those who attended and will surely comment. Make the objection of San Diego to this plan significant enough to get us off this list of 21 cities that are going to be hurt by this very harmful and worthless plan. If you have time to look at actual info before you comment or after 2:00 pm deadline go to:
http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/socal_metroplex/socal_docs.html

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 13, 2015 at 9:31 am

planes do not fly over the middle! they will start their turn at JEDI like they always have, they will just turn narrower and closer to the coast…and then they need to go over ZZOOO on the bottom….it does not affect or change anything in any way…

People need to understand…i wish people would have just let the FAA guys explain at the meeting…it sure was a waste of time to hear people complain about a proposal they haven’t even studied right…

Reply

Avatar D December 13, 2015 at 7:34 pm

EXACTLY!!!

Reply

Avatar RB December 14, 2015 at 6:30 am

Were you at the meeting? The FDA presented a couple of slides, took no notes or records of the meeting and refused to answer any questions or provide any additional information. The FDA was given every opportunity to explain the changes but refused to speak after presenting their slides.

Reply

Avatar Farm Peeps December 14, 2015 at 9:17 am

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had their mouth’s full at the time, however they fully support the OB atmosphere!
:D

Reply

Avatar RB December 14, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Sorry, FAA not the FDA…but both un-elected rule makers…..

Reply

Avatar Farm Peeps December 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm

FAA was flying high on the FDA’s leftovers during the Q&A session. Should have hosted an after-party to get some influence.

Reply

Avatar alfonso July 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

Notice how nobody talks about this anymore?? how its a non issue…
and no the FDA did not have a chance to explain anything, they were interrupted by people every second until they gave up… anyway, i was just looking back into this article because i ran into it again…..i had forgotten….

Reply

Avatar c. gresham bayne md October 8, 2015 at 9:42 am

Airport Noise: Cooking Frogs in Point Loma (submitted to FAA)
As many Point Loma residents open their windows ever wider during the next heat wave, they are increasingly aware that what comes in with the cool air at 6:30 am is an unwanted, unmonitored and ever-louder level of noise pollution from Lindberg field. Although there are 26 noise monitors in Loma Portal and Hillcrest constantly feeding data to an excellent website showing typical noise levels over 80 decibels (dB) and not uncommonly over 90 dB, none of the monitors are located south of Del Mar Avenue. Tracking the increased noise from splaying of take-off patterns to the south and the already too common practice of circling over Point Loma north of Cabrillo monument and the LOWMA waypoint is only being done for those originally compensated through a noise mitigation program, criticized heavily in the California State Auditor’s Report of 2000.
The overwhelming response this week to a public meeting on the FAA’s proposal to allow new routing to add an average 5 decibels (dB) to the status quo could best be described as outrage, but what did we expect? We have had website access to the raw data showing hourly noise events exceeding the threshold of permanent hearing damage for years. Calls to the Noise Complaint Hotline seldom occur, and it seems nearly one fourth of the complaints often come from a single individual (thank you, by the way). As frogs will stay in a pot of water warming up until it boils, Point Lomans seem unaware the noise problem has been increasing in the unmonitored regions for years.
The FAA has acknowledged the fact that property values decline with increasing airport noise. Published articles abound showing our home values have been decreasing with each decibel increase in average airport noise. The FAA’s real problem, however, is not the annoyance of a few or the decline in housing values for an affluent community; it is the need to increase efficiency for an overloaded airport which can have large ramifications in integrated flight patterns nationwide. The planes which take off and land here 500 times daily, concentrated in the morning and evening hours when we are most likely to be home trying to sleep or relax, are the same planes which must pick up passengers in Phoenix or Kansas City and take them to their destinations. Delays over Point Loma just to keep a few people from whining certainly shouldn’t be allowed to affect the efficiency of the national airways, or should it?
Perhaps it should, since the real problem is not about home values and annoyance factors. Measuring sound is a very complex science, and as detailed as the information we get is, someone should be looking at both its limitations and the impact of our current noise levels on healthcare and childhood education. For starters, look at the raw data on Monitor #11, adjacent to Point Loma High School. Here, peak levels over 80 dB occur dozens of times daily. Studies around airports in Sweden, Amsterdam and Los Angeles have shown memory problems and learning defects occur in grade school students subjected to noise levels we routinely have in many Point Loma schoolyards. These studies also show an increase in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, use of cardiovascular medications and even an increase in deaths for seniors over 75 and heart patients in areas with similar airport noise levels.
As the Fire Department continues to inflate the number of 911 calls to “lights and sirens” despite all evidence showing the majority of such transports are not necessary to save life or limb, so, too, must we allow the Port Commission and FAA to gradually increase our ambient noise from aircraft? At least we should have enough ambulances ready to transport demented seniors in Point Loma nursing homes who fall and break their hips during the confusion of a loud plane passing overhead.
As a practicing emergency physician living in Point Loma for some 40 years, I have tried unsuccessfully to migrate farther and farther out “on the Point” to avoid living with the aircraft noise. Now, with climate change and the green movement making open windows preferable to air conditioning, it is obvious that our formerly quiet home is among the many unmonitored by any current FAA or local system, and afflicted with noise thresholds that exceed commonly accepted safety standards for both my grandchildren and my elderly housecall patients. The FAA has already allowed the early practice of the proposed rerouting of planes over land when eastbound, as well as increased splaying of the early ascent routes to the south. You can see it on the excellent website http://webtrak5.bksv.com/san. However, few of the homes being affected have any noise monitoring stations that are relevant, and none of them are within the noise mitigation zones.
The FAA now proposes what they claim will be an average 5dB increase in background airplane noise with the new routes. This is a level easily noticed by the average human ear, and is not an insignificant amount (decibels are derived from a logarithmic scale). In addition, no attempt to study or provide any discourse on the effect climate change is having on noise factors. Changes in temperature, humidity and wind can lead to as much as a 20dB increase in noise propagation, (Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 25, p. 405). With the typical easterly wind and high humidity of our early mornings, the effect on individual flights is clearly significant, but nowhere addressed by averaging in the current methodologies. Neither are the increased building plans and dense housing now underway. People in Liberty Station, built after the current noise mitigation plan was formalized, are probably aware of how dense building leads to reverberations (the “canyon effect”) and augmented noise corridors which can affect neighbors disproportionately. Noise Monitor #7 in Liberty Station is expected to address these highly localized effects, and it routinely shows take-off noise over 90dB.
It is doubtful the FAA will respond to this or any other letter outlining local issues that need to be addressed, since they have already instigated rerouting planes over land when eastbound. For example, the first four flights last Sunday morning at 6:30am crossed land eastbound, one of which even cruised north of Ballast Point. They might have woken you up, but nobody was measuring the noise impact, since the closest monitor was two miles away. Unfortunately, that leaves the first graders at Cabrillo Elementary School still unable to hear their teacher, or, possibly, remember their ABCs.
The FAA should suspend the planned 5dB increase in noise and rerouting the majority of planes over Point Loma until there is an updated analysis using new noise monitors for the impacted area, complete with consideration of healthcare and childhood educational effects. The heated frogs of Point Loma do not want to boil.
C. Gresham Bayne MD

Reply

Avatar PL Local October 8, 2015 at 4:49 pm

Wow!!!!

They told us Oct. 8th at MIDNIGHT was the deadline. Now I hear that it was 2pm.

*Writing this at 5pm after getting off from work

Reply

Avatar Peter October 12, 2015 at 10:14 am

Mon 10-12-2015 Looks like the new flight plan is in use. It is LOUD on Newport Ave

Reply

Avatar south OBcean October 12, 2015 at 11:42 am

Nonsense. The change does not effect the initial departure over North OB.

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 12, 2015 at 12:16 pm

If people would just look at the current flights and the new proposed one…IT DOES NOT AFFECT NOISE, POLLUTION OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Actually read the proposal in detail and understand it…The problem is now people are paying too much attention to it and noticing noise that has always been there…
People say the meeting at the liberty Station was a waste of time…and yes it was because nobody would let the FAA actually explain the proposal…instead people ran their mouths at them…..Flights will still need to go to way point JEDI….then they start their turn and they still have to go past way point ZZOOO at the bottom…only change is that they will be flying closer to the coast, thats it…it won’t mean more noise, or pollution…they will still be over the ocean…plus by the time the plane hits 3,000 in the air at JEDI the noise is almost unnoticeable, no to mention by the time they make their turn and go down the peninsula (along the coast) they are at 5-7,000 feet….Stop making noise over nothing…
Ive spoken to long time residents and developers in the area about this, lawyers, ex pilots, FAA agents, and Airport top executives…

Reply

Avatar Nelson D October 12, 2015 at 12:50 pm

These proposed changes will affect residents, visitors and wildlife. Volume and concentration of vectors will have a multidimensional impact as changes in altitude and position over terrain does affect exhaust, vapor and noise distribution. Vectors over the river have wind prevailing winds from Mission Valley, while the coastal eddies on the Point’s shore trap smog. Our regional air traffic is already far too concentrated and straining private and public facilities far beyond the tarmac. While it’s easy to select data for specific results, before I buy this conclusion I would like to see conclusions from data that takes all the cost benefit factors for the community to consider the decision. Seems to me if we want to safety, efficiency and the air quality – limit air traffic. A small community like Point Loma should not have to burden the air travel for the entire region and compromise its greatest asset for the pleasure or housing the Navy, Space, Marine and entire San Diego commercial air industry. Lets spread the wealth.

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 12, 2015 at 1:43 pm

I understand your point Nelson and I thank you for participating. however people’s complaint is mostly over noise…
Your point is well thought out and valid however Point Loma has always always had airplanes flight above it!! it always has…nothing changes….the fact that the airplane is closer to the coast as it runs down to the low way point (ZZOOO) before it heads east does not make an impact in pollution etc..The flight altitude will stay the same as there is no mention of altitudes changing…Position over terrain also does not change as planes still have to go around JEDDI at the top and then ZZOOO at the bottom…the only positioning that changes is above the ocean…simply closer to the coast…dont get me wrong I think the gas savings is so minimal its not even worth doing this but thats besides the point…..people are being the way people always are…NOTHING TO DO AND THEY LOVE TO COMPLAIN…its in the culture. Make a huuuge deal out of anything and complain as much as you can…

BTW there was a huge complaint committee in Coronado over the city of Coronado painting more bike lanes on the street…it made the late night show on tv….people complaining about it saying “it will poison their kids” etc….someone said it was “equivalent to tattooing their kids all over their body”….hahah its crazy how people get riled up over simple things….rich old people have nothing to do and they start noticing the simplest things like “my neighbor hasn’t washed his dirty car in 10 days and i don’t like the way it affects curb appeal on my street” lol…

whats worse is that i guarantee y0u that most people at the meeting at liberty station don’t even really understand the proposal and haven’t checked the current flight paths, its altitudes, and the history of them….

anyway, thanks again for your comment…

Reply

Avatar South OBcean October 12, 2015 at 2:19 pm

Look at the map again. By removing the LOWMA waypoint, planes can turn tighter and cross over the tip of point loma. There isn’t many homes down there, but it is closer than it was before. And if it’s a shorter distance now, the planes will be lower when flying past. Why was the LOWMA waypoint there to begin with if it truly has no impact on residents?

Reply

Avatar Nelson D October 12, 2015 at 2:02 pm

Well I figure of the Point Loma residents and visitors are the greater stakeholders so they should have a greater weight on the decision process regardless of the point of contention.
A Pig and a Chicken are walking down the road.
The Chicken says: “Hey Pig, I was thinking we should open a restaurant!”
Pig replies: “Hm, maybe, what would we call it?”
The Chicken responds: “How about ‘ham-n-eggs’?”
The Pig thinks for a moment and says: “No thanks. I’d be committed, but you’d only be involved.”

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 12, 2015 at 2:07 pm

That I do agree with…they should be involved in the decision making process…however they need to let the authority be the authority..otherwise they wouldn’t approve any changes at all…
But yes, to your point, they should involve them more….

Reply

Avatar South OBcean October 12, 2015 at 2:12 pm

The “authority” works for the people. Not the other way around.

Reply

Avatar Fonzo2 October 12, 2015 at 2:19 pm

agreed….but its like politics…the people elect the authority, and then the authority makes decisions, for the people…just like a CEO makes decisions for the owner….the owner is owns the company but the CEO makes the decisions and they should always be in the owner’s interest.

Reply

Avatar Nelson D October 12, 2015 at 2:40 pm

The Authority should implement policy, and perhaps suggest policies, however its this board made of external members (mostly elected mayors) that sets the policy: http://www.san.org/Airport-Authority/Board-Members

Reply

Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: