1. Noise or Annoyance? Is actual jet noise a problem? Or is the problem only present in complaints?

2. Public discourse and public policy determine public perception. If public agencies treat something as a problem, the public perceives it as a public problem, even if it is not.

3. Approaches as portrayed by vocal critics: A300-600 freighter, photographed off end of Runway 22L, camera lens zoomed to 200 mm. Actual Approaches over EDH: A300-600 freighter, photographed from Ridgeview, at the point of minimum altitude above ground level in EDH Camera lens at 55 mm, matching perspective of human vision

4. Fundamental types of issues:  Objective factors -- Shared by everyone  Subjective factors: Annoyance -- Generally not shared by everyone

7. Sanity Checks: How does our situation compare with somewhat similar ones elsewhere? Objective factors Subjective factors: Annoyance

8. Locations of publicly vocal complainers

9. Homeowners reporting no jet noise problem From personal contact while measuring actual noise levels 4 of 4 homeowners contacted at point of Maximum noise in El Dorado Hills 2 of 2 + + + + + +

10. CriticAddressLocalityDistance, miles G.O.428 Williams StFolsom1.22 C.C.104 Kilcairn WayFolsom0.95 W.B.108 Landrum CircleFolsom2.27 T.M.2621 Aberdeen LnEl Dorado Hills0.65 M.B.6160 Edgehill DrEl Dorado Hills1.36 J.K.3951 Welker LnShingle Springs4.09 Significant less-vocal critic: Chair/co-chair of EDH APAC N.R.1357 Lakehills DrEl Dorado Hills3.57 This data is retained from an earlier year, Individual critics may have moved. In most locations of El Dorado Hills approach noise cannot be discerned from ambient background noise it distances of about 1¼ miles plus or minus ¼ mile.

13. Typical UPS arrival via Hangtown VOR, Turning onto Mather 22L ILS course at CAMRR Minimum separation of approach from home of serial complainer in Shingle Springs is 4.09 miles. Home of serial complainer

14.  Claim: A serial complainer in Shingle springs says he routinely experiences noise of 80 – 90 dB at his home.  Fact: His home is 4.09 miles from the nearest point on the standard approach paths currently in use. Approach noise from these aircraft drops below the limit of human perception at a slant distance of about 1.5 miles. An example was a Board Of Supervisors Town Hall meeting in 2007 at the EDH Senior Center. This is 1.2 miles from the nearest point beneath the ILS approach to Mather Runway 22L. A 757-200 freighter passed by about 5 minutes before the meeting started; no one noticed the freighter except me. I noticed because I saw it while parking my convertible with the top down.

15.  Claim: A serial complainer in Shingle springs says he routinely experiences noise of 80 – 90 dB at his home. [repeated to consider sound levels]  Fact: The loudest noise level occurs directly beneath the aircraft at its minimum crossing altitude above ground level. In El Dorado County this is at a particular location on Ridgeview in El Dorado Hills.  Fact: Typical measured maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) beneath aircraft crossing Ridgeview in EDH are in the range of 66 to 68 dBA. This is a level usually associated with quiet conversation at 3 feet. It is also the typical level in Board of Supervisors meetings.  Fact: The loudest approach I have ever measured in El Dorado County produced a maximum of 74 dBA at Ridgeview.  Fact: The loudest approach noise I’ve measured anywhere was 84 dBA. Multiple measurements showed this for 747-400 airliners on approach to SFO, about 1,800 feet above ground level at Foster City. SFO normally has a far lower rate of complaints than is produced by our area’s serial complainers.

16. Sanity Checks: How does our situation compare with somewhat similar ones elsewhere? Objective factors Subjective factors: Annoyance

17. Questions… What sound levels do freighter approaches actually produce on the ground? How much traffic (approaches per day over EDH/Folsom) is there? When? How will these measures change in the future? How do complaints about noise relate to actual noise? What misconceptions are evident in complaints? How do public agencies affect public perception? For major objective factors:

18. Not for navigation [Not a current IFR chart]

19. Mather ILS vertical profile Not for navigation [Not a current IFR chart]

20. CAMRR 6,500 LDORR 5,000 YOSHE 3,000 Nominal ILS Approach

21. EDH West Ridge 3,900 EDH East Ridge 4,600 Nominal ILS Approach

22. ILS intercept @ LDORR Plus a burst of afternoon traffic

23. VFR approach South of US 50

24. Loudest 2008 freighter approach recorded in WebTrak: Probably about 85 dBA

25. Approach from south By UPS954 plus other Traffic (week before Christmas)

26. Approach Usage Data for the week of December 15 through December 22, 2008 -- The week before Christmas, busiest freight week of the year

27. Approach Noise Exposure Potential Data for the week of December 15 through December 22, 2008 -- The week before Christmas, busiest freight week of the year

28. Overflight Noise Measurement Measurements on SierraFoot.org use Lmax, the maximum noise level SEL/SENEL – Oakland, Foster City Lmax, Oakland, Foster City SEL/SENEL, EDH West Ridge Lmax, EDH West Ridge

29. Actual Crossing Altitudes on ILS at Initial Approach Fix Rescue area, north of Shingle Springs

30. Actual Crossing Altitudes on ILS at El Dorado Hills west ridge

33. Measured Noise

36. Approaches per day and Noise-Number Index for Annoyance

37. NNI Annoyance & Complaint Rate EDH CSDEDH West RidgeFoster City NNI – Noise/Number Index 7.311.746.2 Complaints per 1,000 approaches 1,9192.2 NNI is the first widely accepted index of annoyance due to exposure to jet noise, adopted by the British more than 40 years ago. Published literature, including documents cited by www.keepthepeace.org, indicate that NNI less than 35www.keepthepeace.org corresponds to insufficient annoyance to produce complaints. Values somewhat above, such as Foster City‘s 46.2, are expected to produce sporadic complaints. This table reports a composite complaint rate for Mather-correlated complaints from Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Rescue, and Shingle Springs. All complaint counts are from the first 7 months of 2008.

38. Can a single serial complainer dominate complaint statistics? Yes -- Here’s an example from LAX, July 2008:

39. Serial Complainers & MHR Noise complaint statistics correlated with Mather flights also show highly disparate rates depending on the location of complainers. Average monthly complaints : 45 per Folsom caller, 12 per EDH caller

40. Serial Complainers & SMF Location-specific complaints also apply to noise attributed to flights to and from Sacramento International Airport. Average monthly complaints: 33 per Folsom caller, 8 per EDH caller

41. MHR serial complaints by community Complaint percentage distribution for SMF is similar, ± 6% per community

42. SMF serial complaints by community Complaint percentage distribution for MHR is similar, ± 6% per community

43. Populace in general Most people in the EDH/Folsom area think we have problems with jets flying too low and too loud. The main exceptions are those who live directly under the ILS approach, who generally indicate no problem exists. The public understanding derives mainly from public dialog and media news coverage. Public agency treatment of the issue as a noise problem has carried strong influence – especially in connection with the City of Folsom‘s 2007 law suit.

44. Random sample: Noise under the ILS, west ridge, EDH – loudest point for Mather approaches Afternoon of August 25, 2009

45. Remaining slides are excerpts from a typical session of observing a freighter approach and measuring its noise level from Ridgeview, directly under the approach. First, a web tool (FlyteComm in this case) is used to identify air carrier cargo flights scheduled and en route to Mather. The screen image shown is for a flight UPS 2958, which did not overfly EDH on this day. A different web tool, WebTrak, was used later to check the UPS 2958 actual flight track in the Sacramento region. After driving to 3270 Ridgeview Dr, directly below the ILS approach to Runway 22L, while waiting a T-38 and a pickup truck were photographed and their noise measured. UPS 2960, a 757-200, was photographed as it flew over on the ILS approach. The sound level meter reading was photographed after it had latched the maximum sound (pressure) level of 61.7 dBA, roughly half as loud as the T-38 and the pickup truck.

46. VFR Approach: 0 dBA in “sensitive area”

47. Sample measurement The following sequence of slides shows an example of noise data collection. The aircraft is photographed as it passes, then the noise meter is photographed to record the noise meter’s L max reading. Not visible, the camera records date and time. This sample shows a low-noise approach over Ridgeview. Most approaches are in the range of 66 dBA to 68 dBA.

48. UPS 2960 (757-200F): 61.7 dBA

54. The next two slides show two examples of louder non-cargo noise sources which have not been the subject of public complaints. Both produced noise levels which human hearing perceives as about twice as loud as the preceding low-noise approach. They would be perceived as significantly louder than typical cargo approaches, not fully twice as loud.

55. USAF T-38 at 3,000 ft: 72.8 dBA

56. Ford F250: 75.3 dBA