Message From James Webb, Jr. (SJC Director Assistant)

posted Sep 15, 2017, 6:46 PM by Tony Guan

Dear Community Stakeholder:


In case you did not see the September 11, 2017 meeting the San José City Council’s Transportation and Environment Committee, the Committee unanimously adopted the Airport Commission’s and staff’s recommendation to form the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals. The Committee adopted all of the Airport staff’s recommendations and parameters contained in the staff report. If approved by the City Council, the Committee’s charge will be to:


1.      Gather input, concerns, and comments from the general public on the south flow issue.

2.     Identify and discuss possible options to address the procedure’s noise impacts.

3.     Recommend potential “feasible” options for FAA consideration.   


The parameters of the Committee would be as follows:


ü Focus will be on the south flow issue only.

ü The Committee will sunset after 120 days.

ü The Committee will not adopt any recommendations that will impact a community not represented on the Committee.

ü Every city in Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara will be invited to join the Committee. Each jurisdiction will be welcome to appoint one elected official and one alternate elected official. 

ü Each jurisdiction participating on the Committee will have one vote.

ü At least 2/3rds of members would be needed to adopt a recommendation.

ü The FAA will have the sole authority to determine the “feasibility” of any proposed recommendations.

ü A final report with “preliminary feasible” recommendations would be shared with FAA and Congressional offices for their information and review.


This item will next be reviewed by the full City Council on October 3. In the event you have not seen the staff report and attachments, you will find a copy of the Transportation and Environment Committee agenda at the following link: The Ad Hoc Committee item is item (d)3 of the Committee’s agenda.


The October 3rd Council meeting will begin at 1:30. However, the Ad Hoc Committee item will NOT be the sole or first item for Council review. Council will follow its agenda and the Ad Hoc Committee item will be reviewed in the order it appears on the agenda. We will provide you with a copy of the October 3 agenda once it has been published.


I hope you find this information helpful.


Mineta San Jose International Airport | Silicon Valley's Airport

James Webb, Jr. | Assistant to the Director

Mineta San José International Airport
1701 Airport Blvd. Ste B-1130, San José, CA 95110

A Big Step Forward - Ad Hoc Committee Approved by TEC San Jose on 9/11/2017!

posted Sep 12, 2017, 9:37 AM by Group SaveMySunnySky   [ updated Sep 13, 2017, 7:20 PM by Tony Guan ]

Many thanks to people who showed up in the TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE meeting today (9/11/2017)!  There were around 20 residents showing up in the meeting from Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View and Los Altos, considering it was a weekday afternoon, and most of the people could not make it due to work, this turnout was more than just excellent!

Below is a record of the meeting:

And the San Jose is really being transparent that EVERY single letter from residents are also published here:

From links below, we can see they have received numerous emails from residents supporting the formation of the Ad hoc SJC South Flow Committee:

And the result is just as expected, it was approved! So we are off to a resolution soon!

At the video record position 1:51:00, Robert from Mountain View presented his observation from the historical data, that SJC south flow flight path has indeed shifted 2 miles west to where it is today.
 Sunnyvale Residents Speaking:

 Cupertino City Representative Speaking:

Cupertino City Representative Speaking

The proposal was passed unanimously!
SJC South Flow Ad Hoc Committee Approved Unanimously!

Listen to it, draw your own conclusion, and leave no room for you to regret in the future!

One thing for sure, without everyone's hard work, none of this could happen. Let keep standing together, fighting together until the problem is fixed!


Team (Save My Sunny Sky)

Call For Attending the 9/11/2017 Meeting (SJC Transportation and Environment Committee)

posted Sep 8, 2017, 9:12 AM by Group SaveMySunnySky

Dear All,

If you have some time next Monday afternoon, please consider showing up in the SJC Transportation and Environment Committee meeting. This meeting will be a critical point for all of our endeavor in calming down our skies.

Please sign up if you are planning to go, we can arrange carpool if necessary:


When: Monday, Sept 11 at 2:00 pm (Till 3:15pm)
Where: Wing 118-120 at San Jose City Hall (200 E Santa Clara St, San Jose, CA 95113)
Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals (Agenda d.3)
Following a unanimous recommendation by the Airport Commission in February to form an Ad-Hoc Committee, Airport staff drafted a report on the proposed committee, and is scheduled to be reviewed by the San Jose City Council’s Transportation and Environment Committee (T&E) on September 11. Information on attending the T&E Committee can be found at:
A copy of the report can be found at:
Pending approval of staff's report on the Ad-Hoc Committee, the report will reviewed by the San Jose City Council at their October 3rd meeting.

This is a critical meeting for our group mission to calm down our skies.

Please wear our SaveMySunnySky T-shirt if you can make it to the meeting, or any ORANGE colored shirt to show our solidarity.

If you need carpool arrangement, please leave your immediate contact information so we can reach to you. All personal info will be confidential and destroyed after the event.

Feel free to share the link of this sign up form to anyone you know, the signup link is:


Monday 8/14/2017 6pm – San Jose Airport Commissioners Meeting

posted Aug 7, 2017, 8:18 PM by Group SaveMySunnySky   [ updated Aug 7, 2017, 8:42 PM ]

On Monday 8/14, the SJC Commission Meeting will be held, and the the Noise Committee Round Table (Letter from Congress representatives) will be discussed. We call for people to show up to support the formation of the round table to start address the noise issue as early as possible.

Time: Aug 14, 2017, 18:00
Address: San Jose Airport, 1701 Airport Boulevard, Suite B-1130

Agenda (link:
IV. A. Approve the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of May 8, 2017
V. A. Update on Commission Recommendation to Form an Advisory Noise Committee
V. B. Noise Reports: Monthly Noise Summary

If you decide to show up, please try to wear 'Save My Sunny Sky' T-shirt or something Orange to show solidarity, thanks!

For more info, please visit or join our Google Group for more discussions:

Joint Letter to Cities Association RE South Bay Airport Roundtable 06280-P2

[Mercury News]Sunnyvale residents join protest against airplane noise at San Carlos Airport - the Story from Sunnyvale

posted Jun 30, 2017, 5:53 PM by Group SaveMySunnySky

Surf Air found the BVA very good for San Mateo residents:
"The six-month trial ended in January, and according to a statement released Wednesday from Surf Air, the results of the trial “found the routing had a noticeable and positive impact on residents living around San Carlos Airport.”
The company stated it will continue to use the route and to work with the Federal Aviation Administration on alternative flight paths. Surf Air might also increase flight altitude over Sunnyvale and reduce the use of engine power to dampen the noise."

Our Mayor is ready to give more feedback on their new 'mitigation measurements, without saying anything about BVA:

"Hendricks said in a phone interview with this newspaper he agrees with the proposed solution of planes flying higher, but wants more information from Surf Air on specifics, particularly a timeline to alert residents.
“Sunnyvale’s objective is for Sunnyvale to be a consideration in the success criteria in any decision or mitigations that occur,” he said. “We are very appreciative of any efforts to actually cause aircraft to fly higher, but we are looking for more information on if they are going to do that and when it’s going to start so people can know that if it’s gotten better or not and then we can give feedback.”"

So it appears that, Surf Air is trying different ways to solve their own problems by pushing more flights to over Sunnyvale, and Sunnyvale is kind enough to be a eager QA for that anything coming.

When residents can see the situation is getting worse and worse:

"... but residents’ concern that the company’s use of the route could set a precedent, leading to similar flight services utilizing the same route to San Carlos in the future.

“We want to be represented, and Sunnyvale isn’t being represented in this. They have effectively transferred noise from one community to another community,”


Well, I cannot think of any better way to be 'represented', from the County? from the City? Or purely by the residents? What if all our representative asks for is "please be gentle when you do this to me next time?"

Why the need to be so polite to the robbers??? Where is the courage to say the right things? Where is the push back?

At this point, a lawsuit is possibly a more effective resort, and more protests maybe needed. Let's see how hot it can reach until someone really gets fired up.

Join us to have a stronger voice, and to take some actions:

Thank You Everyone For the Protest against Surf Air On June 17!

posted Jun 17, 2017, 9:54 PM by Group SaveMySunnySky   [ updated Jun 19, 2017, 6:28 PM ]

A BIG thank you to all of the Sunnyvale residents who participated in the Surf Air protest at San Carlos Airport on June 17.

More than 80 residents of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and San Mateo County gathered at the San Carlos Airport on Saturday morning (June 17, 2017) to protest the rapid increase in Surf Air flights arriving and departing from that airport.  SurfAir flies very noisy turbo prop planes (the Swiss-made PC-12), and airplanes approaching the San Carlos airport are at low altitude (<3000ft), even as far out as Sunnyvale.  This combination of frequent, loud, low Surf Air flights has resulted in a sky-rocketing of complaints to the San Carlos airport.

Demonstrators gathered holding signs that included the phrases "No Fair! No More Surf Air",  "Stop Dumping On Sunnyvale",  and “Sunnyvale Says Surf Air Must Go!”. 
Approximately 40 Sunnyvale & Cupertino residents and another 40 San Mateo County residents voiced their discontent and solidarity during the protest – Chanting phrases like “No More Surf Air” and “Go Away Surf Air”.  Many of the Sunnyvale and Cupertino protesters wore orange as a symbol of unity and solidarity against the issues associated with Surf Air at the San Carlos Airport.
San Mateo County residents and Sunnyvale/Cupertino residents do have common ground on many Surf Air and San Carlos Airport issues. Sunnyvale and San Mateo county residents both agree that commercial airlines, such as Surf Air, have no place at small local airports like the San Carlos Airport.  Noise, number of flights, curfews, and other issues affect large parts of the Bay Area and many places other than just San Mateo County where the airport is located.  These residents also agree in the critical need and in their support for the implementation of a curfew at the San Carlos Airport.
There is clear contention between San Mateo County residents and Sunnyvale residents regarding the Bayside Visual Approach (BVA), which has transferred the Surf Air flight path (and airplane noise) from the peninsula residents to Sunnyvale residents – Effectively transferring airplane noise from one community to another.  It is critical that decisions on flight path, noise, and number of flights must take a regional approach – the impact goes far beyond San Mateo County near the San Carlos Airport.
A Sunnyvale resident present at the protest commented:  “This new flight path over Sunnyvale is an example of the rich San Mateo county residents in communities like Atherton, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park pushing the problems outside their county.  This should not be allowed.”
We hope that Sunnyvale’s strong attendance at the protest will signal to Surf Air and San Mateo County officials that Sunnyvale residents will not rest until this issue is addressed with consideration for Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and other impacted residents.  Sunnyvale City Officials received absolutely no notice when the initial BVA (Bay Visual Approach) proposal was considered for San Mateo County.  Despite the distance and time commitment for Sunnyvale residents to attend the protest, they turned out in force with creative signs, slogans, and even sidewalk protest art!!  Sunnyvale and Cupertino should not be disregarded in the desire to find an effective solution for all impacted communities.

Protest on 6/17 Against Surf Air and SQL, Calling for Participation

posted Jun 14, 2017, 2:16 PM by Tony Guan

NextDoor Event Link

Dear All,

From the evening of this Monday (6/12), all Surf Air flights are passing Sunnyvale flying BVA route. BVA stands for "Bayside Visual Approach" (over Sunnyvale) during clear weather conditions. And FAA and SQL sneakily started a 6-month trial without notifying Sunnyvale residents last year. Despite the fact that Sunnyvale residents strongly oppose it and filed numerous complaints against the trial, Surf Air is still flying BVA now. Right now, since BVA is being implemented, they are further pushing for 'All-Weather BVA' to dump ALL SQL noise to us regardless of weather condition.

Surf Air currently has 20 flights operated, and it just proposed to add 15 more daily flights, those airplanes are small, low, and loud. The business keeps growing. And imagine the 200+ flights from SJC and 35 flights from SQL, and dozens flights from the surrounding airports (PAO, OAK, etc), as well as the potential SFO flights, Sunnyvale will be a battle field.

We need to work hard to fight this trend.

We would like to organize for this airplane noise protest from Sunnyvale and Cupertino at San Carlos Airport.

We would like to appear there as a group to make clear:
1) We do not support BVA and anything similar to it with any different names
2) We want Surf Air (or Encompass) to be OUT of Sunnyvale and Cupertino, BVA or Non-BVA
3) We do not welcome any more flights from SQL
4) We do not allow any secretive deals behind our back.

June 17th Saturday from 8:45 AM until 10:30 AM

701 Skyway Road, San Carlos, CA, United States

Please signup in this form if you can make an effort to be present at the meeting, we need the head count and arrange carpool to the meeting. Let's wear our group T-shirt (Or anything with Orange color) to show the force.

The link to signup form:

This is going to be a joint effort by all affected cities, so multiple media will be there. And we want to make sure that Sunnyvale and Cupertino residents will be among them.

For more info, please click:

We want to be part of this protest, to distinguish Sunnyvale and Cupertino from the rest of the protesters, just to show our resolution.

Please feel free to forward either this event link from NextDoor or our signup sheet link to your neighbors and friends. Specially, if you do not live in Serra Park neighborhood, please make sure your community sees it so we have the maximum participation. Thanks!


Save My Sunny Sky:
Save My Sunny Sky Google Group: http//

SJC Just Released Noise Summary Data for January 2017

posted Feb 17, 2017, 9:17 PM by Group SaveMySunnySky

SJC Airport Noise Office (link) just released its summary data from January 2017. Let's take a look.

The data is in a format of spread sheet (link), and it looks like this:

Monthly Noise Summary

Total Operations12,67511,08212,17212,10512,96113,43613,56313,86713,33813,63213,27412,667
Total Operations between 2330-0630285152189199210271294207181242197287
Air Carrier Operations between 2330-0630163538078781311551175710679182
General Aviation Operations between 2330-06301229910912113214013990124136118105
Total Intrusions*53264552409911754284827163
Total Non-Compliant Intrusions13345131130237
Air Carrier Complaints434403723343125244186207088313580823325861
General Aviation Complaints60577536501007796112166673528629
Total Complaints4404511473703626244957168209974253876126490
Total Complainers37677635463658299197420352327
Total Engine Run-ups**100000000000

* Total Intrusions by time of day is available by clicking on the number of intrusions.
** High Power Engine Run-ups during the Curfew Hours Only

Operation: a takeoff or landing of an aircraft at the airport.
Intrusion: is any operation by an unauthorized aircraft between the hours of 2330 and 0630.
Non Compliant Intrusion: is an Intrusion that did not meet the exemption criteria set forth in the municipal code
Air Carrier: a commercial carrier utilizing aircraft as a means of transport of passenger or freight.
General Aviation: all flights other than scheduled Air Carrier service.

A visualization of the flight operations between 23:30 ~ 6:30 (when residents are more sensitive to the noise):

From this chart, we can see that the night time operations almost doubled from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017, and also the intrusions are having spikes last December. And the intrusions are on an increasing trend line.

And the complaint data:

Ever since October 2016, the complaints numbers were exponentially increasing, last 6 months reading:

820 997 4253 8761 26490 44045

And we are having more people aware of this issue, and as a result, more people joined to complain about it. Even recently it stays around 376 people, 50 short of the peak (last October there were 420 people complaining, most probably because of the Town Hall meeting). But looking at the complaint number! That means people who are complaining are more persistent, for we know that's the only way to remind the officials and FAA, that our life quality are seriously impacted!

Needless to say, it's an uphill fight.

FAA knows about it, city officials know about it, county leaders know about it, elected Representatives know about it, and of course residents know about it with more feelings and emotions.

But we have no choice, we have to keep it up, until the problem gets fixed.

Call for Attending the FAA Rulemaking Meeting on 1/31 @ San Jose

posted Jan 24, 2017, 7:35 AM by Tony Guan   [ updated Feb 1, 2017, 9:23 AM ]

  • According to Sunnyvale City, FAA has proposed modifications to “Class B Airspace Area” at SFO. Limited details are available on the proposal; notification was published via the November 9, 2016 Federal Register. The proposal would realign the airspace to provide more room for vectoring.

    The FAA will be hosting three fact-finding informal airspace meetings to solicit information from stakeholders concerning the proposal:
    Monday, January 30 at 5:30 p.m.
    Burlingame Public Library, Lane Room
    480 Primrose Rd., Burlingame, CA 94010

    Tuesday, January 31 at 5:30 p.m.
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, Room 225
    150 E. San Fernando St., San Jose, CA 95112

    Wednesday, February 1 at 5 p.m.
    Port of Oakland Building, First-Floor Exhibit Room
    530 Water St., Oakland, CA 94607

    This proposal has the potential to impact Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and potentially Cupertino, depending on how much the FAA is proposing to expand the current airspace.
  • Please consider attending this meeting, orange shirts or coats recommended for a louder voice.
  • [Important] Online Register for seat:
  • To order a group T-shirt, click here

FAA letter to Mayor Hendricks (11/21/2016)

posted Dec 15, 2016, 10:19 AM by Tony Guan   [ updated Dec 15, 2016, 10:20 AM ]

Thanks to Mayor Hendricks efforts on the airplane noise issue, Sunnyvale City Website has posted "FAA Regional Administrator Glen Martin's letter to Mayor Hendricks"

The link:

I excerpted some of the Q&A to give an idea why complaints are so important, and why each household affected should file their own complaints, for every resident in the household.


1. (SQL, Surf Air) What criteria will be used to make this decision and when will this decision be made?
The Surf Air six month testing process began on July 5, 2016, and will end on January 5, 2017. The San Carlos Airport (SQL) Manager and staff are collecting data specific to noise complaints during the course of the test. Please know that the FAA has been provided with interim noise complaint data from SQL over Sunnyvale, which includes complaints specifically from the City of Sunnyvale. The FAA must follow the requirements outlined in FAA Order 1050.1F (Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures) to determine whether a proposed procedure will require an environmental review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A).

2. (SQL, Surf Air) Is the number of complaints received afactor in this decision? How many complaints is the tipping point that it makes a difference? The noise complaints submitted during the test will be used in part, along with a noise screen, in making decisions moving forward.

3. (SJC) What is the process for Sunnyvale to request higher flight altitude over the City for South- flow? How do we change this and make it higher again? To make requests for new or modified Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) can be initiated by "anyone who recognizes a potential increase in safety and/or efficiency" through the development or amendment of an IFP ( 14 CFR Part 97). All IFP requests must be submitted via the IFP Information Gateway, https:l/ traffic/flight info/aeronav/procedures. Each IFP request goes through an initial feasibility study which determines if an airport is eligible for the IFR procedures, if the airport's infrastructure and obstacle survey supports the type of procedure requested, and ifthe procedure provides benefit to the National Airspace System. Providing as much information as possible in the IFP request can greatly reduce the time it takes to conduct this initial feasibility study.

For more information, visit:

This is the same nature of about all public issues. Some care, some don't, and some like it. In the end, all suffer from different sources. Based on the state of our community, I think this fits well for these kind of public issues, enjoy!

First they came for the Socialists...

By Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

1-10 of 22