Santa Monica Municipal Airport does not pose a threat to the health and well being of its neighbors.

This is the fundamental conclusion presented by Philip M. Fine, Ph.D., to the Santa Monica Airport Commission at a recent October meeting. The study was commissioned by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as a response to concerns by anti-airport activists. Note that this is the seventh such study and once again, anti-airport groups are refusing to accept the results even after having participated and agreeing to the monitoring setup.

Like LACG, anti-airport groups at Santa Monica have simply declared that their airport is a major pollution source (citing no factual basis with which to make that claim) and keep demanding study after study hoping that one will eventually agree with their baseless claims.

"Anti-airport advocates have tried to use these seven studies to restrict operations or possibly close the airport," said Greg Pecoraro, AOPA vice president of regional affairs. "We hope this latest study will convince area residents and officials that the airport is not a health concern as some have tried to make it." Preliminary results from air samples taken at the airport between April 2006 and July 2006, and October 2006 and February 2007, indicate that the levels of lead in the communities around Santa Monica Municipal are below federal and state standards.

While the SMO study found elevated levels of lead near runway sites and surrounding communities, the levels found were determined to be below both federal and state standards.

Note that Santa Monica Airport (SMO) has 165,130 annual operations. While this is similar to Livermore, it includes over 11,000 air taxi operations. Santa Monica has over six times the current Livermore jet traffic flow.

Reference :Santa Monica Mirror

Reference :Airport Master Records

-Brett Wayne-

Coalition for Livermore Airport : info@lvk1200.info.

Recently, opponents of the Livermore Airport have been engaged in a letter writing campaign directed at the City of Pleasanton, the Pleasanton City Council, and the editorial staff at several of the local newspapers. LACG published the phone numbers and email addresses of several the editorial staff of several local newspapers and encouranged their members to demand a response.

The Contra Costa Times has responded - but not favorably to the anti-airport crowd. The full text of the editorial opinion that was published on November 7 has been reproduced to the right. Bottom line, the editorial staff at the Contra Costa Times finally gets it.

After years of overheated rhetoric and utterly fabricated claims, the editorial staff at the Contra Costa Times has had enough. Enough, that is, of the anti-airport crowd.

Below are just a few of the better quotes from the opinion.

"The complaints appear to be a case of overheated NIMBYism based on a lot of unfounded fears."

"Demand for use of the airport is much more a factor of the business economy than of the new hangars or concessions."

"...nearby residents need to be realistic about life near an airport."

Unfortunately, the Times couldn't resist taking a swipe at Livermore over transparency. Apparently, five public workshops, eight master plan meetings, and numerous public hearnings regarding the Livermore airport isn't adequate for the Times. Note that at each of the public workshops and master plan meetings, guiding statements were provided by the City Council that commercial service was "off the table" and not to even be considered.

It'd hard to identify any process that has been MORE transparent than the City Council plans for the Livermore Airport.

-Brett Wayne-

Coalition for Livermore Airport : info@lvk1200.info.

Editorial, Contra Costa Times, 11/07/2007

COOL AIRPORT RUCKUS

Article Launched: 11/07/2007 03:00:20 AM PST

IT'S TIME FOR RESIDENTS near the Livermore Municipal Airport to cool their jets.

The city has selected a private company to take over fuel sales and other concessions at the airport as well as construction of new hangars. But, residents from Livermore and Pleasanton who live nearby are warning that this is the first step in a major expansion. Pleasanton city officials also have gotten involved, insisting on completion of an environmental impact report before the new company takes over.

The complaints appear to be a case of overheated NIMBYism based on a lot of unfounded fears.

First, the airport has been in its current location since 1965, before most of the homes in the area were built. So the residents should expect some airplane noise in their neighborhood.

Second, residents warn that the 65 new hangars will lead to increased traffic at the airport. Actually, there are already nearly 400 hangars at the airport and the new ones will replace about 50 to 100 outdoor tie-downs for aircraft. So there's unlikely to be much difference in the number of flights in and out of the airport.

Third, an increase in airport traffic should not be a deal-breaker. After all, even if there were an increase in traffic, it's unlikely to offset the more than 25 percent decrease in the past seven years.

There are currently about 175,000 takeoffs and landings at the airport each year, down from peaks of about 240,000 in 1999 and 275,000 in 1993.

Demand for use of the airport is much more a factor of the business economy than of the new hangars or concessions.

Fourth, residents warn that the improvements will lead to more jet traffic. Newer jets can actually be quieter than some propeller planes. Moreover, jets account for less than 2 percent of the flights at the airport.

Finally, residents and the city of Pleasanton said that Livermore should have completed an environmental impact report before recently signing a lease with the new company, Livermore Air Center LLC. The city and residents are concerned about the noise impact from any changes at the airport. They are entitled to know what that is.

But, the company isn't expected to take over operations for another year or two. The city of Livermore plans to require an EIR before approving the company's plans for the hangars and a new fuel center. That seems to be the appropriate time for an environmental review.

Meanwhile, Livermore officials would help their case if they would openly address some of the issues that concern residents. They should provide assurances that the airport won't turn into a large-scale air cargo depot; that regularly scheduled charter service will not be permitted; and that nighttime air traffic will be minimized. They should also be forthcoming about any plans for expansion.

In sum, the city needs to be transparent and responsive to neighbors' concerns. And those nearby residents need to be realistic about life near an airport.

Last week, LACG posted a PDF document containing their minutes from a meeting with Leander Hauri, manager of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Nevermind the fact that these minutes put words in Leander's mouth that he never said, but Leander has not been given the opportunity to respond or provide additional clarifications to some of LACGs mischaracterizations of the meeting. While it would be charitable to call it poor form, it is yet another example of their continuated strategy of selectively misrepresenting the facts to the public.

Nevertheless, there are several memes that emerge that we can respond to.

Can Livermore be used to host a commercial package hub by companies such as FedEx/UPS/DHL, etc.?

Short answer - No!

The prospect of someone like FedEx using Livermore airport as a regional distribution hub has been a frequent and scary story used by LACG to frighten the local residents. That they continue to tell this fabrication after it has been soundly refuted is yet another testament to their fundamental dishonesty.

LACG refuses accept that,

...there is no economic model that supports it and numerous physical barriers that would prevent Livermore from becoming a regional package distribution hub.

FedEx is currently the world's largest operator of the A310, 727, DC-10 and MD-11 aircraft. A more complete breakdown of their fleet (from Wikipedia) is provided to the right. Furthermore, FedEx has orders and options on another thirty Boeing 777 Freighters.

It would be physically impossible to land any of these large aircraft at Livermore. A fully-fueled and loaded DC-10 weighs over 430,000 lbs and requires a runway length of over 8,600 feet. The even larger Boeing 777 freighter exceeds 750,000 lbs and probably requires a 10,000+ foot runway. (Note that Livermore's longest runway is just over 5000 feet and has a pavement strength of only 60,000 lbs/double wheel landing gear).

Of the entire FedEx fleet - about the only aircraft that can operate from Livermore would be the smaller Cessna 208 Caravans (8,000 lbs), the Fokker F27s (43,000 lbs), or the smaller ATR-42s (41,000 lbs). Given these aircraft's extremely limited capacity and the thousands of dollars per hour to operate them, LACG is delusional if they think that someone like FedEx would even consider flying packages from Livermore to ther primary distribution hub in Oakland when that same trip could be accomplished in almost the same amount of time using a semi-truck that probably costs them less than $100 for the trip.

The Eclipse-500 Very Light Jet (VLJ)...

...is quieter than all these planes...

LACG's website currently contains yet another breathless "Airport Alert". Apparently, the prospect that the City might approve the Minimum Standards and Airport Rules and Regulations noted in the post below has got them all worked up.

Two years ago (February 28, 2005), the Livermore City Council approved a plan of action regarding the Livermore airport that included 13 items (identified below in blue). Fully 12 of those 13 items have been implemented. The notable exception is the installation of the noise monitoring system, which remains pending due to a variety of reasons including cost and posturing over who should pay for it. It has also been stuck in limbo due to Pleasanton's continued stalling over the issue.

Apparently, successfully addressing 12 of 13 points just isn't good enough for LACG!

A STOP WORK ON THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

DONE. All work on the master plan update has ceased.

B FOCUS TIME AND RESOURCES ON NOISE MONITORING AND REDUCTION AND

1 FOSTER THE REDUCTION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE THROUGH ANY LEGAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY

DONE. City staff have met with legal representatives of the FAA Oakland Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and San Francisco Operations Office. In both cases, the FAA clearly articulated that flight operations, standards, and enforcement are a federal issue. The City has no authority to supercede that.

2 INCREASE AIRCRAFT NOISE MONITORING ACTIVITIES AT APPROPRIATE MONITORING LOCATIONS

PENDING. The City has requested and received proposals from two engineering firms to install and operate a noise monitoring system at the Livermore airport. In many respects, LACG and other opponents of the airport also share in the blame for the fact that a system isn't already in place.

LACG has demanded that the the City purchase the most expensive system, replete with night vision cameras and automated image and voice recognition equipment designed to capture aircraft registration numbers. Those demands have driven up the costs well over several hundred thousand dollars. Ongoing maintenance and additional staffing for the system will ultimately drive the long-term costs to over one million dollars.

Because of the expense, Livermore has requested Pleasanton's assistance in paying for the system. Pleasanton has stalled for months in making a decision on that request. Note that the vast majority of complaints are lodged by Pleasanton residents and directed at corporate jets operating in support of Pleasanton businesses - see here.

In addition to demanding such an outrageously expensive system, opponents are also insisting that local pilots (who are not the source of their prinicpal objection) bear the entire cost for the noise monitoring. All these demands have prevented the City Council from making a final decision on the purchase and implementation of the noise monitoring system.

Periodic noise surveys are a perfectly reasonable and appropriate thing for the airport to fund. If LACG is not satisfied with that, they are well within their rights to help fund a more elaborate system.

3 WORK WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FAA TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS TO THE TRI VALLEY FROM FLIGHTS TO AND FROM REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS

DONE. The City has met with FAA officials at the Oakland FSDO. With three major international airports (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) and three primary reliever airports (Livermore, Reid Hillview, and Buchanan), the current Bay Area air traffic control and circulation plan is complex. While minor adjustments have been made, significant modifications are impossible because they affect numerous arrival and departure procedures for the entire Bay Area.

4 OPERATE THE AIRPORT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROMOTE THE REDUCTION OF NOISE BELOW CURRENT LEVELS

ONGOING. Airport noise is entirely driven by operation counts and the mix of aircraft arriving at the field. Federal grant assurances prevent the City from discriminating on the types of aircraft that arrive, as such there's not much the City can to influence activity at the field.

City staff have made an aggressive outreach to pilots, instituted voluntary quiet hours between 10PM-6AM, developed and distributed a pilots information guide, posted signs at the ends of the runways, and continue to work with the flight crews of the corporate jets.

5 EMPHASIZE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AS IT RELATES TO NOISE REDUCTION GOALS

DONE. The proposed improvements are entirely consistent with the Livermore General Plan and the existing master plan for the airport.

6 CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AS AN UNSUBSIDIZED AND SELF SUSTAINING PUBLIC ENTERPRISE IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER

DONE.

The Livermore Airport is NOT and NEVER has been subsidized by the City.

7 PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL LOBBYING EFFORTS TO LEGISLATE THE PHASE OUT OF HIGH NOISE PRODUCING AIRCRAFT

DONE. The City of Livermore has joined the Sound Initiative. Sound Initiative's goal is to end domestic use of all Stage I and II aircraft. Their most recent efforts include introduction of Senate Bill 4109 in the US Senate that effectively implements such a ban.

8 IDENTIFY NOISE ABUSERS

DONE. The City has also obtained a commercial subscription to Flight Aware. Fully 90% of the high noise producing aircraft arriving at Livermore are identified using the flight plan information published by Flight Aware.

The real problem with this bullet is with the definition of abuser. The City has an obligation to keep the airport open 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. That obligation stems from the grant assurances tied to the original federal federal funding for the airport. While the City has requested that pilots observe quiet hours between 10PM-6AM, those quiet hours are strictly voluntary.

9 IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE PROCEDURES IN TAKING AND RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS

DONE. The City has installed a special noise complaint line (925-373-5050). Complaints may also be submitted online through a special web-page available on the City's airport web site.

Complaints are logged daily. City staff continue to work with aircraft owners and pilots that are identified in those complaints.

10 CONDUCT MORE AGGRESSIVE OUTREACH PROGRAM TO PILOTS

DONE. The City worked with local pilots, control tower staff, flight instructors from several of the local FBOs to develop and distribute the Livermore Pilots Information Guide. Over 4000 copies were sent to the local pilots, airport tenants, aircraft owners, and Bay Area flight schools and FBO's. The guides are freely available in the terminal building and FBO's and offered to transient pilots who are unfamiliar with the field.

A full-resolution version of the information guide is available here - lvk_ops_guide.pdf

C EXISTING 1975 MASTER PLAN TO REMAIN IN EFFECT AND POLICY PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL AIRLINES TO REMAIN IN EFFECT

DONE.

Note that there has NEVER been a plan to bring commercial airline service to Livermore - there's simply no economic model that supports it.

D STAFF TO REPORT TO COUNCIL QUARTERLY ON THESE ITEMS AND INCLUDE COST ANALYSIS RELATIVE COST OF OPTIONS

DONE. Regular reports have been prepared and provided to City Council members. Whether or not those reports are presented at a City Council meeting is entirely at the discretion of the Council.

-Brett Wayne-

Both the Airport Manager and the City received extensive feedback regarding the draft minimum standards and airport rules and regulations. As a result, the City Manager, Attorney, and several City staff worked to address the concerns raised by a number of airport users. The documents to the right represent a substantial revision of those earlier documents.

While I have yet to completely review both documents in their entirety, much of what I have already reviewed leads me to believe that the airport manager and city staff took our concerns seriously and substantially addressed them. I believe these documents represent a marked improvement over the first proposed draft.

Given the numerous revisions, the deadline for public comment has been extended to October 16. They will be reviewed by the Livermore Airport Commission at the October 30th meeting and submitted for review by the City Council at one of the November City Council meetings.

If you still have objections that you would like to raise, please direct them to,

Leander Hauri
Livermore Airport Manager
email : lhauri@ci.livermore.ca.us.
phone : 925-373-5280

LVK Airport Draft Minimum Standards

LVK Airport Draft Rules and Regulations

-Brett Wayne-

Coalition for Livermore Airport : info@lvk1200.info.

The California Pilot's Association has passed on a warning regarding increased incidents of pilots being flashed with green lasers near the Morgan Hill area.

Green light lasers are considerably more powerful than the simple red pointers used for presentations, laser levels and other short range pointing functions. They can cause serious eye injury if seen without proper eye protection. If you have seen a green laser flashed at you while flying in the Bay Area, or know of someone who has, please contact the San Francisco FBI office number (415) 553-7400.

It is especially important that you report your position as soon as possible when flashed by a laser, so try to pinpoint your position with either lat/long, streets, landmarks or by tower/approach control radar tracking before calling the authorities.

More information is available at : http://www.calpilots.org

Tonight the Livermore City Council heard comments from LACG and West Side Pride as well as CFLA members and the general public on the City of Pleasantons request for a 30-day extension to the Livermore City demand for action regarding funding of the Livermore Airport noise monitoring system.

As expected the Livermore City Council voted to extend that deadline.

The unexpected part of the meeting was the LACG and West Side Pride people and their insistence that converting some tie down space into hangers somehow constitutes an expansion of the airport. Clearly these people do not understand the airport and the facilities that must be managed. I wonder how they would feel if their neighbors told them that they can own a car, but they can't build a garage to put that car in. Furthermore, they must pay for a very expensive device to prove that their car is not making significant noise.

They also strongly oppose an FBO at the airport. Sadly, they do not see that there are already several FBOs at the airport right now. As best as I can understand, LACG and West Side Pride seem to think that FBO==jets. What they are missing is that commerce==jets.

In my opinion, these people have missed the part where Livermore and the rest of the Tri-Valley area have become a large "city". Cities have all kinds of business parks and executives of said businesses coming and going. Corporate jets are just a part of that business. If living near an airport is such a burden, move. There just is no other rational choice.

I want to thank all the pilots who showed up tonight to support our efforts to maintain a kind of civilizing effect on the LACG people. They where almost nice tonight.

So, is this argument done? Not by a long shot. You are vital to the survival of the Livermore Airport. The airport will continue to be under attack for a long time to come and your help and active participation is requested and very much appreciated.

-Jay Cotton-

Coalition for Livermore Airport info@lvk1200.info.

Tonight was an example of democracy in action. The City Council heard arguments from both sides of the Livermore airport noise issue, and reached a terrific compromise with respect to both the noise monitoring and making some key decisions regarding investments for the future of the airport including hangar construction and FBO development.

This evening, the Livermore City Council voted 3-2 to invest in a reasonable noise monitoring system on the condition that the City of Pleasanton also participate in paying for the system. If Pleasanton declines, no noise monitoring will be performed.

This seems reasonable since more than 60% of the complaints originate from Pleasanton residents. It's also reasonable in the sense that the Council saw the intrusive aircraft registration number capture as both expensive and unnecessary.

The council members also appeared to realize that building a monitoring system at $250,000 plus about $45,000 per year to run, was a bid steep to accommodate a half-dozen or so of the most vocal complainants.

Of course, the city of Pleasanton may spring to life after all these months of silence and fork over some money to pay for the noise monitoring system. Even if that comes to pass, the system that staff is recommending is the least expensive and least intrusive of the proposals. It is certainly a system we can live with and perhaps even take advantage of.

So, what does this really mean to us and the Livermore Airport? The short answer is, as pilots we must continue to remain vigilant in our attempts to reduce our noise impact on the community. Despite the exaggerated claims from a small contingent of anti-airport activists, there are also some legitimate cause for their concern. While we may disagree, we must treat our neighbors with respect and continue to give them due regard. That's not just good politics - it's good manners.

We also must continue to be vigilant with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. We have not won a war. In fact, we may have simply dodged a bullet.

Please do not assume that the argument is over. Pleasanton is still committed to building and 800-unit senior housing complex right off the the west end of the airport property. This needs to be stopped. It is vital that we oppose new residential housing that falls within the 60-decibel CNEL footprint.

Surprisingly, the City Council also passed a resolution directing staff to proceed with a modified version of Option #2 of the hangar construction which allowed for private construction and FBO-managed hangars. The council elected to proceed with more T-hangars including large T's and some small and medium box-hangars. They elected to defer the request for the nine, large box-style hangars for some future demand.

Indeed, the additional T-hangars and small and medium box-hangars directly address the needs of those currently on the hangar waiting list and should allay concerns from the public that new hangars will encourage more jet traffic. These are of the size and type hangars that single engine and small twins can use.

So the airport can proceed to get some FBO's to bid on building hangers and starting a fuel concession at the airport. This is good news for the airport.

It remains to be seen what the cost of these new hangers will be, and also if there is a competitive advantage at the gas pump. We should know more as the development proceeds.

Thanks to all who attended and provided their support

I look forward to a bright future for the Livermore Airport.

-Brett M Wayne-

Coalition for Livermore Airport info@lvk1200.info.

For those of you who still want to see the actual staff reports, I will leave them linked below for your review.

LVK Airport Update Report

LVK Noise Complaint Stats

LVK Federal Limitations

LVK BBA System Recs

LVK BAE Analysis

Every two years, the City of Livermore participates in the National Citizen Survey. The NCS is a community specific survey used to guide local governments on the concerns of local residents. This year, 1,000 residents completed and returned the questionnaire. A preliminary report of the survey results was presented at the February 27 Livermore City Council Meeting.

There are two noteworthy results presented in the survey. When residents were asked about potential problems in Livermore, the three concerns rated by the highest proportion of respondents as a major problem in 2006 were traffic congestion, too much growth, and taxes. Noise ranked a distant eighth. Less than one in ten identified noise as an issue (it polled only two points higher than weeds).

Noise is hardly the barnstorming issue that airport critics claim.

What's even more revealing is the response to the City's additional policy question specifically addressing noise. While 22% either strongly or somewhat agreed with the assertion that noise generated by the Livermore airport is a problem, almost twice that many (43%) identified vehicle traffic noise as a problem. Furthermore, significantly more people (31%) identified the weekly garbage collection noise as more of a nuisance than the airport.

Less than 2% of those surveyed specifically identify airport generated noise as potential problem for Livermore.

This clearly underscores that the Livermore airport critics are indeed, a fringe minority. They continue to wildly exaggerate the impact of the airport and their concerns are NOT representative of the community.

Hopefully, the results of the survey will go a long way towards giving the Council members some cover when making decisions regarding the future of the Livermore airport.

You can review a copy of the survey yourself. It is included in the agenda packet for the February 27 City Council meeting (item #6.02). This link should take you directly to the survey.

I have also placed a PDF copy of the report below. Be aware that it is a rather large file (9+ MB) and may take some time to download.

National Citizen Survey, The City of Livermore, Draft Report of Results, 2006

See also : http://www.n-r-c.com

-Brett Wayne-

Critics of the Livermore airport have often claimed that the Livermore airport is "lowering their property values". While one would expect the airport to have a limited impact, that impact would also have been priced into their homes when they originally purchased them.

Case in point is 887 Roma Street (Google maps). A local activist who frequently complains about airport noise and potential impact on his property value recently sold his home and moved to Pleasanton. His home was located just over a mile from the primary approach and underneath an extended left base turn to runway 25L.

We know that when these homes were originally built in 1995, they were priced in the high 200's and low 300's. If you assume the owner invested 20% down, made steady mortgage payments for 11 years (he would have paid approximately $150,000 in interest payments), and include other factors such as routine maintenance, property taxes, closing costs, etc., it is quite likely that his investment costs would have been on the order of $200,000. Considering that the owner was an original owner and the home was sold for $825,000, this means he easily cleared well over $500,000 dollars in profit!

On the market for less than 30 days and sold at a $500,000+ profit. Wow! If that's a hit on property values and salability, I'll eat my hat!

Congratulations on the sale of your home Mr. Sheth! We're delighted to see that the sale was so successful.

Thanks also for proving our point!

-Brett Wayne-

On Thursday, January 26, the City of Livermore hosted a public workshop on the proposed noise monitoring system for the Livermore Airport (LVK). The workshop was well attended by the local aircraft owners and pilots. In fact, the pilots outnumbered the airport critics by about a factor of 2 to 1.

Several representatives were on hand from the Livermore Airport, the Oakland FSDO, the FAA, the aviation legal counsel for the City of Livermore, and noise consultants from Brown-Buntin Associates.

In general, the system being proposed appears to be a fairly non-intrusive system composed of five sensors. Two sensors will be located East of the airport beneath the runway 25R approach. Two will be placed West of the airport in the neighborhoods along Stoneridge Drive and Pleasanton Meadows. A fifth sensor will be located in a central location at the airport. The proposed locations are marked in the adjacent images. Click on them for more detail. The more objectionable components of the system includes digital voice recording of aircraft broadcasts and possibly a camera system for automatically recording aircraft registration numbers.

After 5 or 6 public workshops prior to the Master Plan Update, another 8 related to the Master Plan Update Committee, numerous Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and finally this most recent workshop, it has finally started to sink in to some of the most vocal airport critics that beyond monitoring, there's not much the City can do with respect to punishing the local aircraft owners and pilots for their continued legal and unencumbered access to the airport.

Both the City Attorney and the FAA representative from the Oakland FSDO made it clear that residents need to have realistic expectations with regards to living near an airport. Planes are going to fly over their homes regardless of the monitoring.

Contrary to the claims of some critics, I am not concerned about the consequence of monitoring. The noise study performed in 2000 clearly indicate that the Livermore Airport is not a noise-impacted airport by both federal and state standards. The CNEL noise contours that were established in 2000 clearly show this.

Aircraft operations are down over 30% from the levels measured in 2000. All that noise monitoring will accomplish is to underscore again that, indeed, the Livermore airport is not noise-impacted.

While it is true that the mix of aircraft has changed somewhat, the Pleasanton study also included two large aircraft (DC-9 and MD-87) that are no longer based at the Livermore airport. Residents need to have realistic expectations that the noise monitoring system will not substantiate the ridiculous claims made by both LACG and West Side Pride.

While I have been opposed to the noise monitoring largely because I see it as a waste of money, there are some potential benefits that such a system can provide. First off, it can be a useful tool for the airport staff to help identify aircraft owners with aircraft that have unusual or uncharacteristic noise signatures. As long as the system is not used for punative actions, it's possible that pilots can get constructive feedback on their impact. That may lead to better operations and technique.

Second, if it can be identified that a significant percentage of the aircraft that occasionally operate during the voluntary quiet hours come from FBO's and airports not based in Livermore, airport staff can follow up with those owners and operators and encourage them to reduce their impact. Contrary to what critics claim, aircraft owners and pilots are a reasonable lot. Sometimes they are simply unaware of their impact. Encouragement by the airport management may help to alleviate the impact on the local residents.

It's also possible that noise monitoring could address whether or not there is a noise "hot-spot" located in the elevated terrain approximately 3-3.5 miles East of the airport. The Livermore instrument approach has a 3.0 degree glide-slope. At that distance, aircraft on the glide-slope should be over 650 feet above the homes in those neighborhoods.

If a noise monitor was placed in Lester Knott Park or the open space South of Loch Lomand Way, it might be useful in determining if aircraft are consistently flying below the glideslope.

Finally, a well designed noise monitoring system should also be able to separate noise generated by aircraft operating out of Livermore from those that are over-flying the valley that are mostly inbound for Oakland and San Francisco. While some residents claim that they are not complaining about that noise, the noise logs clearly indicate a measurable number of complaints are directed at non-Livermore bound aircraft.

No amount of courtesy from local pilots will alter the fact that large aircraft inbound for the regional airline and delivery hubs generate noise in the valley.

-Brett Wayne-

Last summer, I obtained a copy of the Livermore noise complaint summary from January-May 2005. Using that information, I was able to deduce approximate address information using Google maps. That data is shown above, with details of the Livermore and Pleasanton complaints tallied to the right.

Note that this was publicly available data until the City discontinued releasing it.

It is quite obvious from this data that the vast majority of complaints regarding flights out of the Livermore airport come from five principal households. Four of those households are in Pleasanton. One is located in Livermore.

The entire public debate regarding the Livermore airport is being framed by a handful of very vocal and chronic complainers.

It is also quite apparent (and hardly a surprise) that the concentration of complaints originate from neighborhoods that are closest to the airport. This contradicts the wild claims made by some critics that the impact of the airport is felt by the residents of the entire valley.

It is also worth noting that most of the complaints result from aircraft flying the Livermore 25R ILS instrument approach and Livermore ONE Departure. Many of these flights are conducted as part of actual IFR operations or IFR-related training. Pilots are given specific arrival and departure instructions that they are not allowed to deviate from.

Most of the complaints originate from households that are captured by the existing Alameda County Airport Influence Area, however, a significant number of those that don't are scattered to the East of the airport directly below the runway 25R instrument approach. This is also not a surprise given that those homes are located on a hillside that is elevated underneath the approach.

-Brett Wayne-

Livermore Household Complaints

Pleasanton Household Complaints