Impact of Palomar Airport Expansion – Carlsbad

[Anonymous]

Get Your Facts Straight.

I wanted to respond to this and to the prior comments, because I don’t think it is nice to call people idiots when you don’t know the facts, and especially when you have the wrong information.

I am one of the residents living very close to the airport. I have a few points to make that should clear things up for those of you who think we “complainers” have no rights. Most importantly, we are not complaining about the noise from the airport!! You all have it VERY WRONG on that respect. What we are complaining about is two fold: 1) the planes that do not follow the VNAP out to the ocean, but instead take off and veer very sharply southwest over hundreds of homes, at very low altitudes; and 2) planes taking off during the “quiet hours” between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., during which time there is NO ONE IN THE CONTROL TOWER! We of course do not include emergency aircraft.

Palomar Airport spent tens of thousands of dollars years ago to compile information that was published in a study recommending they fly out to the ocean before making turns. This pattern is a voluntary pattern. Most pilots adhere to it. BUT there are many who do not.

The quiet hour rule has been in effect for years, but also is a voluntary rule. Most accidents have happened during the early morning hours when there was no one manning the control towers. We would also like this rule to be enforced as mandatory, with the exception of emergency flights.

In the last one to two years out of the 10 years I have lived in my home I can tell you that this violation of the recommended VNAP occurs numerous times on a daily basis and is getting worse, especially in the last year. My children have commented that they were able to see the pilot in several planes!! Our fear is that this is a major accident waiting to happen, much like the one that occurred in San Diego last month. However, with the high concentration of homes in this area it would be an enormous disaster.

If the airport would mandate this VNAP procedure that THEY INSTITUTED then we would not complain any longer. Yes, there were notices posted about the proximity of the airport and potential noise in the sales office when I purchased my home, yes: I was aware there was an airport nearby; yes: I came to the neighborhood at different times and listened for the planes (it was very quiet in those days–Palomar was a mom and pop airport with much less traffic). I investigated the airport and its single runway and knew there was really no room for expansion, and it was not an issue at the time. Planes did not fly over the homes.

We “complainers” are not anti-airport. In fact, I have used the airport!! It is very convenient. Again, we just want to protect our families and homes from an inherent disaster. If the airport officials stopped passing the buck and worked with the FAA to mandate the VNAP we would all be satisfied.

Whether the city of Carlsbad should have allowed the building of neighborhoods in the proximity of an airport is a moot point. What we have to deal with now is the SAFETY ISSUE. Then everyone can live without fear and the airport can go on as it is.

When you call people names without understanding the facts that makes you the moron.

[Anonymous]

Get Your Facts Straight.

I wanted to respond to this and to the prior comments, because I don’t think it is nice to call people idiots when you don’t know the facts, and especially when you have the wrong information.

I am one of the residents living very close to the airport. I have a few points to make that should clear things up for those of you who think we “complainers” have no rights. Most importantly, we are not complaining about the noise from the airport!! You all have it VERY WRONG on that respect. What we are complaining about is two fold: 1) the planes that do not follow the VNAP out to the ocean, but instead take off and veer very sharply southwest over hundreds of homes, at very low altitudes; and 2) planes taking off during the “quiet hours” between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., during which time there is NO ONE IN THE CONTROL TOWER! We of course do not include emergency aircraft.

Palomar Airport spent tens of thousands of dollars years ago to compile information that was published in a study recommending they fly out to the ocean before making turns. This pattern is a voluntary pattern. Most pilots adhere to it. BUT there are many who do not.

The quiet hour rule has been in effect for years, but also is a voluntary rule. Most accidents have happened during the early morning hours when there was no one manning the control towers. We would also like this rule to be enforced as mandatory, with the exception of emergency flights.

In the last one to two years out of the 10 years I have lived in my home I can tell you that this violation of the recommended VNAP occurs numerous times on a daily basis and is getting worse, especially in the last year. My children have commented that they were able to see the pilot in several planes!! Our fear is that this is a major accident waiting to happen, much like the one that occurred in San Diego last month. However, with the high concentration of homes in this area it would be an enormous disaster.

If the airport would mandate this VNAP procedure that THEY INSTITUTED then we would not complain any longer. Yes, there were notices posted about the proximity of the airport and potential noise in the sales office when I purchased my home, yes: I was aware there was an airport nearby; yes: I came to the neighborhood at different times and listened for the planes (it was very quiet in those days–Palomar was a mom and pop airport with much less traffic). I investigated the airport and its single runway and knew there was really no room for expansion, and it was not an issue at the time. Planes did not fly over the homes.

We “complainers” are not anti-airport. In fact, I have used the airport!! It is very convenient. Again, we just want to protect our families and homes from an inherent disaster. If the airport officials stopped passing the buck and worked with the FAA to mandate the VNAP we would all be satisfied.

Whether the city of Carlsbad should have allowed the building of neighborhoods in the proximity of an airport is a moot point. What we have to deal with now is the SAFETY ISSUE. Then everyone can live without fear and the airport can go on as it is.

When you call people names without understanding the facts that makes you the moron.

[Anonymous]

Get Your Facts Straight.

I wanted to respond to this and to the prior comments, because I don’t think it is nice to call people idiots when you don’t know the facts, and especially when you have the wrong information.

I am one of the residents living very close to the airport. I have a few points to make that should clear things up for those of you who think we “complainers” have no rights. Most importantly, we are not complaining about the noise from the airport!! You all have it VERY WRONG on that respect. What we are complaining about is two fold: 1) the planes that do not follow the VNAP out to the ocean, but instead take off and veer very sharply southwest over hundreds of homes, at very low altitudes; and 2) planes taking off during the “quiet hours” between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., during which time there is NO ONE IN THE CONTROL TOWER! We of course do not include emergency aircraft.

Palomar Airport spent tens of thousands of dollars years ago to compile information that was published in a study recommending they fly out to the ocean before making turns. This pattern is a voluntary pattern. Most pilots adhere to it. BUT there are many who do not.

The quiet hour rule has been in effect for years, but also is a voluntary rule. Most accidents have happened during the early morning hours when there was no one manning the control towers. We would also like this rule to be enforced as mandatory, with the exception of emergency flights.

In the last one to two years out of the 10 years I have lived in my home I can tell you that this violation of the recommended VNAP occurs numerous times on a daily basis and is getting worse, especially in the last year. My children have commented that they were able to see the pilot in several planes!! Our fear is that this is a major accident waiting to happen, much like the one that occurred in San Diego last month. However, with the high concentration of homes in this area it would be an enormous disaster.

If the airport would mandate this VNAP procedure that THEY INSTITUTED then we would not complain any longer. Yes, there were notices posted about the proximity of the airport and potential noise in the sales office when I purchased my home, yes: I was aware there was an airport nearby; yes: I came to the neighborhood at different times and listened for the planes (it was very quiet in those days–Palomar was a mom and pop airport with much less traffic). I investigated the airport and its single runway and knew there was really no room for expansion, and it was not an issue at the time. Planes did not fly over the homes.

We “complainers” are not anti-airport. In fact, I have used the airport!! It is very convenient. Again, we just want to protect our families and homes from an inherent disaster. If the airport officials stopped passing the buck and worked with the FAA to mandate the VNAP we would all be satisfied.

Whether the city of Carlsbad should have allowed the building of neighborhoods in the proximity of an airport is a moot point. What we have to deal with now is the SAFETY ISSUE. Then everyone can live without fear and the airport can go on as it is.

When you call people names without understanding the facts that makes you the moron.

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]Get Your Facts Straight…….

[/quote]

Question: If all the thigns described above are “voluntary”, doesn’t it mean airplanes aren’t required to comply?

I’m trying to see if there some other definition of “voluntary” used in the FAA. It’s a serious question. When I see the words “voluntary” and “recommended”, I immediately think I comply if convenient. But don’t know what that means in FAA speak.

My understanding was that with the exception of grandfathered airports, there are no mandatory quite hours for airports, and i thought Palomar wasn’t one of the them.

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]Get Your Facts Straight…….

[/quote]

Question: If all the thigns described above are “voluntary”, doesn’t it mean airplanes aren’t required to comply?

I’m trying to see if there some other definition of “voluntary” used in the FAA. It’s a serious question. When I see the words “voluntary” and “recommended”, I immediately think I comply if convenient. But don’t know what that means in FAA speak.

My understanding was that with the exception of grandfathered airports, there are no mandatory quite hours for airports, and i thought Palomar wasn’t one of the them.

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]Get Your Facts Straight…….

[/quote]

Question: If all the thigns described above are “voluntary”, doesn’t it mean airplanes aren’t required to comply?

I’m trying to see if there some other definition of “voluntary” used in the FAA. It’s a serious question. When I see the words “voluntary” and “recommended”, I immediately think I comply if convenient. But don’t know what that means in FAA speak.

My understanding was that with the exception of grandfathered airports, there are no mandatory quite hours for airports, and i thought Palomar wasn’t one of the them.

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]Get Your Facts Straight…….

[/quote]

Question: If all the thigns described above are “voluntary”, doesn’t it mean airplanes aren’t required to comply?

I’m trying to see if there some other definition of “voluntary” used in the FAA. It’s a serious question. When I see the words “voluntary” and “recommended”, I immediately think I comply if convenient. But don’t know what that means in FAA speak.

My understanding was that with the exception of grandfathered airports, there are no mandatory quite hours for airports, and i thought Palomar wasn’t one of the them.

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]Get Your Facts Straight…….

[/quote]

Question: If all the thigns described above are “voluntary”, doesn’t it mean airplanes aren’t required to comply?

I’m trying to see if there some other definition of “voluntary” used in the FAA. It’s a serious question. When I see the words “voluntary” and “recommended”, I immediately think I comply if convenient. But don’t know what that means in FAA speak.

My understanding was that with the exception of grandfathered airports, there are no mandatory quite hours for airports, and i thought Palomar wasn’t one of the them.

[Deserted]

The strange saga of Palomar Airport.

As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)

Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.

First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.

And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.

What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.

Palomar data:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=1%2F15%2F2009&p3=carlsbad&p4=CA&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev_date&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1

Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.

I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.

[Deserted]

The strange saga of Palomar Airport.

As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)

Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.

First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.

And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.

What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.

Palomar data:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=1%2F15%2F2009&p3=carlsbad&p4=CA&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev_date&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1

Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.

I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.

[Deserted]

The strange saga of Palomar Airport.

As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)

Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.

First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.

And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.

What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.

Palomar data:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=1%2F15%2F2009&p3=carlsbad&p4=CA&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev_date&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1

Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.

I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.

[Deserted]

The strange saga of Palomar Airport.

As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)

Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.

First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.

And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.

What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.

Palomar data:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=1%2F15%2F2009&p3=carlsbad&p4=CA&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev_date&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1

Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.

I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.

[Deserted]

The strange saga of Palomar Airport.

As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)

Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.

First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.

And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.

What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.

Palomar data:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1999&p2=1%2F15%2F2009&p3=carlsbad&p4=CA&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev_date&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1

Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.

I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that means what it implies–VOLUNTARY. However, Palomar commissioned this study itself and they came to the conclusion that it was the safest route! They advise pilots to follow that route and as I said, the majority do.

Since Palomar is the busiest single runway airport in the nation and since the accident rate is so high, and since there ARE so many homes in the area (regardless of whether or not they should have been built), don’t you believe that NOT following the safety conclusion to the report that the airport commissioned is a bit dangerous? Come on, people…this is not rocket science. My children and neighbors are living in a potential deadly zone. It is not a question of IF but of WHEN a plane will hit a neighborhood.

Look at the accident stats and you will see that compared to other airports in the nation Palomar has staggering odds. The FAA will not do anything about this unless the county (airport owner) tells them something needs to be done. The Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC) needs to step up to the plate and get the FAA to do so. They will not listen to our pleas.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that means what it implies–VOLUNTARY. However, Palomar commissioned this study itself and they came to the conclusion that it was the safest route! They advise pilots to follow that route and as I said, the majority do.

Since Palomar is the busiest single runway airport in the nation and since the accident rate is so high, and since there ARE so many homes in the area (regardless of whether or not they should have been built), don’t you believe that NOT following the safety conclusion to the report that the airport commissioned is a bit dangerous? Come on, people…this is not rocket science. My children and neighbors are living in a potential deadly zone. It is not a question of IF but of WHEN a plane will hit a neighborhood.

Look at the accident stats and you will see that compared to other airports in the nation Palomar has staggering odds. The FAA will not do anything about this unless the county (airport owner) tells them something needs to be done. The Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC) needs to step up to the plate and get the FAA to do so. They will not listen to our pleas.

[Author]

Posts