Would You Like to Be on the Airport’s New Citizen Advisory Committee for Noise Study? Applications Due Feb. 28

by on February 20, 2018 · 7 comments

in Ocean Beach

Are you through just complaining about the San Diego airport noise (“the OB Pause”) and want to be on a new citizens’ advisory committee as part of a noise study?

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is creating a Citizen Advisory Committee as part of their Noise Compatibility Study Update and they’re looking for residents from the surrounding communities. Interested? Applications – found here – are due by February 28th.

The advisory committee will work alongside the study’s Technical Advisory Committee. and “provide input to the TAC regarding the Airport Noise Advisory Committee’s recommendations of 10/21/2017 and any new aircraft noise concerns related to operations from San Diego International Airport”.

“The President/CEO of the Airport Authority will review the applications to ensure the 15 selected committee members represent all the communities currently expressing concerns over airport and aircraft noise.”

The selection of the advisory committee and the beginning of the study will occur by May of 2018.

If you are interested, please complete this form and attach in an e-mail to: CACApp@san.org (receipt confirmation will be sent)
Again, applications will be accepted until 2/28/2018.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

retired botanist February 20, 2018 at 12:13 pm

The formation of yet another committee is a total joke, no matter who is on it. I spent untold hours filing complaints, tracking noise levels and curfew violations on flight tracker, reading reports of the ‘noise committees”, examining how many fines were issued, the amount of the fines, and the repeat offenders. Conclusion? Very little was ever done or accomplished at the advisory meetings, the fines are inadequate (what’s $2K to an airline carrier making millions every day?!), the exceptions granted were the norm (weather, mechanical problems, larger engines), the insulating windows program completely backed up (and inconsequential to renters), and the whole “feedback from the community” spin just sheer baloney! Even the noise level monitors? The “decibel threshold” is ridiculous and is exceeded all the time, restrictions and curfews only apply to outgoing flights, not incoming, and the use of phrases like “noise abatement” and “noise mitigation” are meaningless!
Finally, at the end of the day, its always the “FAA’s fault” and these committees claim they are basically powerless to do anything. The advisory board has been meeting for years, yet the problems get worse. Another “citizen advisory committee” is not going to change anything…probably only another disaster will. Sign me jaded! :(


Toolpusher February 21, 2018 at 12:56 am

I sympathize with jaded. Bottom line: if we are going to have an airport downtown it will be with all the accompanying noise in some neighborhoods (i.e. Loma Portal). The real solution will be to move the airport to essentially a low-populated area like the case with just about every other airport serving a large city. The big question is where would that be for San Diego and more importantly at what cost. (And I know the history with formally NAS now MCAS Mirimar). Otherwise keeping the airport Downtown, all you can really do is address the noise issue on the margins as modern jet airplanes make a lot of noise. I would be all for moving the airport assuming the cost is somewhat reasonable; but, if and until that happens the best we can do is make some progress abetting the noise. As to whether it feels like community involvement doesn’t move the needle the unfortunately reality is it probably doesn’t but it may at least keep the problem from sliding in the other direction. Because I almost guarantee that city, FAA, airlines, etc. will do what is in their best interest and say the community must not have any concerns if the members of the community do not participate.


micporte February 21, 2018 at 10:45 am

yeah, pretty sure a lot of comfortable landowners in the limited impacted radius will be on the citizens board, and how much $weight will they have?…already got the airport district to pay them soundproof windows.. so annoying all this air traffic…better jet off to the Caymans for relief…


Chris February 21, 2018 at 6:24 pm



Debbie February 21, 2018 at 10:10 pm

What will the newly appointed committee do that past have not done?


Gary Wonacott January 6, 2021 at 10:06 am

Four years ago the process started to find relief for those negatively impacted by the implementation of the new FAA NexGen departures. The one over Mission Beach, PADRZ SID, dramatically increased the noise leading to a substantial jump in the number of noise complaints to the Airport Authority Noise Abatement Office. Committees were formed and ideas developed to potentially decrease the noise where it was most concentrated. In the meantime, projections pre-COVID of a dramatic increase in operations at SDIA stunned those of us living under the primary tracks, the 275 that is aligned with the runway, and PADRZ that runs over South Mission Beach. One of the ideas, a three SID departure, was promoted in an op-ed article in the OB Rag some time ago. This idea would disperse the current departures aligned with the runway, the 275, over a wider area, thus decreasing the noise impact for those under the current track. The concept would also move the PADRZ track south about 0.25 miles south, thus providing substantial relief to those living under it. It will have an overall effect of decreasing the number of houses within the incompatible noise area, the 65 dB CNEL. But it is not likely to happen, because there is a very small shift in the contour south, a shift so small that it is within the error band of the Airport Authority computer analysis predictions. The FAA has no policy that states that a shift is not allowed, but the Airport Authority is taking a very narrow interpretation of this concept so that it does not upset anyone, anywhere. As a minimum, the FAA and the Airport Authority should given this a try so that people can determine themselves if there is sufficient benefit to make this move permanent. Computer analyses are not the real thing. Let’s give the real thing a try.


retired botanist January 6, 2021 at 3:25 pm

Yeah, if only that was a really viable solution, which its not. It is really unconscionable that in this day and age, after such repeated reports on health care issues (physical and psychological) associated with the take-off and landing corridors, failed window installment plans that completely circumvented renter’s rights and left owners waiting for years, decibel recorders that do nothing other than generate data ignored by the subcommittees, and projected flight paths, and curfews, that are completely ignored by larger carriers because the fines are so miniscule compared to the offset of housing passengers (or pkgs) somewhere else overnight…. uh, yeah, which part of this considers the plight of the population living below?
There are SO MANY other places for an airport! I know this b/c I was involved in a Tier 1 assessment of other locations about a decade ago.
Yeah, I know. This is an old, tiresome problem that won’t go away. What’s it gonna take, SD? Another tragedy?


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: