Impact of Palomar Airport Expansion - Carlsbad

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Bubblesitter on October 12, 2007 - 2:34am

An update on the planned Palomar airport expansion in Carlsbad. A large new terminal building is planned. Groundbreaking if it hasn't occured yet will soon begin. This will increase flight operations at the airport, along with the size/type of of aircraft, e.g. more noisy 70 passenger turboprops.

Seems to be a growing groundswell of resident opposition to this. Not much can be done however, other than complain about violations of VNAP (Voluntary Noise Abatement Procedures) THESE ARE VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES ONLY. Property value in surrounding areas will surely be impacted. Here's the opposition site.

http://loudairport.com/press.html

The opposing view from the Palomar airport association spells out their view. Good points. High density residental should never have been approved for surrounding areas.

http://www.palomarairportassociation.com/

This is getting increasingly contentious. The PAA site is claiming their site has been vandalized by opponents. The Carlsbad planning commission sure screwed this one up big time. They approved Bressi ranch which is in the flight path of this airport, THIS AIRPORT IS ONE OF THE BUSIEST SMALL AIRPORTS IN THE COUNTRY WITH 200,000+ FLIGHT OPERATIONS YEARLY. IT WILL GET BUSIER!!

Submitted by Alex_angel on October 12, 2007 - 6:13am.

Typical moron home owner. They move upstairs from a restaurant and complain about the smell of food. They move next door to a nightclub and complain about the loud music. They move next to an airport and complain about the planes.

Submitted by Bugs on October 12, 2007 - 6:51am.

The sales offices for each of the "communities" at Bressi all included notice - posted on the walls next to the door - that the project was located near an airport and is subject to air traffic noise. Nobody buying in Bressi could have not known they were moving a couple hundred yards south of the landing pattern for Palomar.

What the developers at Bressi never explained to their buyers was that the north and west sides of the project would be eventually built out with concrete tilt-up industrials and office condos. The developers deliberately waited until the residential portion of the project was sold off before they even started grading the commercial side.

Had the buyers who were paying $150,000 for the "view amenity" looking to the west realized that view would be of industrial buildings I don't think they would have been so anxious to pay it.

Personally, I don't think increasing the air traffic at Palomar will do any more damage to the values or marketability at Bressi than what they already had.

Submitted by ocrenter on October 12, 2007 - 8:27am.

bugs, you are right... but...

several times we went to Bressi the sales staff had some type of "sale" or "incentive" display placed coincidentally over the plaque that stated the airport noise alert.

just an interesting note, that's all...

Submitted by patientlywaiting on October 12, 2007 - 8:31am.

As I said in a separate thread, I love the convenice of Palomar.

Lindberg is busy and could use relief. We could easily land the smaller aircrafts at Palomar instead of Lindberg and keep Lindberg as the principal airport. Why build a new airport when we can improve the use of our existing facilities.

Tough luck for the people who live near Palomar. Like bugs said, they should have known. The Bressi folks were too blinded by potential appreciation and the "opportunity" to by that they threw due diligence out the window. They should have contacted the city about the commercial development to the west of Bressi and the County about the airport.

Submitted by sdrealtor on October 12, 2007 - 8:44am.

I'm flying to Puerto Vallarta in December for a family vacation and the flights were actually $250 cheaper person than from any other airport in SoCal between SD and LAX. Best of all, free parking, no waiting for luggage on return and back home in 5 to 10 minutes. We love that airport.

BTW, when Bressi opened my wife and I went for a look. When we got out of our car we stood in parking lot for 5 minutes. There was a plane coming in nearly every 30 seconds. We didnt even bother to go into the models after that. How could they not have known?

Submitted by Bubblesitter on October 13, 2007 - 6:51am.

Yes the Palomar airport is convenient, I'm looking forward to perhaps taking flights out to Vegas and Tahoe next year.

I don't know if pricing of the airport expansion/noise is factored into the current prices at Bressi Ranch. Gotta be at least a $100-150K discount over equivalent "no noise" location. What were those folks thinking?

When did that development see majority of its build-out? In the 2004-2006 timeframe? There's gotta be a large % of risky loans and investors in there holding on hoping for a market turn-around.

Submitted by Bubblesitter on November 25, 2007 - 10:31am.

fyi, update on the new terminal

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/...

Looks to be a large terminal with restaurants.

I just took a short commuter flight from LA down to Palomar airport. Nice hopper, beats flying into SAN and fighting traffic going north on the 5.

Bubblesitter

Submitted by sstearns2 on November 25, 2007 - 2:11pm.

A couple thoughts... first off I'm an airline pilot that, up until the last couple months, flew the turboprops in and out of Carlsbad. The turboprops are pretty quiet and the newer 70 seat turboprops (dash-8s) are very quiet.

The major noise comes from jets, the loudest being the oldest regardless of size. In fact some of the loudest planes out there are the first generation of small bizjets like the twenty series learjets. The big new bizjets like the Gulfsteam 550 are almost creapy quiet.

Probably the least appreciated point when it comes to airport expansion is that increasing the runway length decreases the noise. It allows us to use lower power settings for takeoff and less reverse thrust on landing.

There are airports like orange county that we have special profiles we have to fly the reduce noise. We do try to fly as quietly as we can in general.

Scott

Submitted by Bugs on November 25, 2007 - 2:45pm.

The homes in Point Loma are subject to a lot more air traffic noise than the homes along the Palomar Airport Road corridor. I notice the values in Pt. Loma area are among the most stable in the county.

Submitted by flyer on November 26, 2007 - 2:22pm.

Before we settled into our home in RSF, we looked at Bressi and locations north of Via de la Valle, but decided against all of them because of the accelerated traffic problems you encounter the further north you go on I-5, and the airport situation at Carlsbad.

I've been flying 757's for 15 years, and regardless of the type of aircraft, I would never want to live near any airport. That said, some family members who live in Point Loma and Sunset Cliffs are effected by the noise at Lindbergh, and others are not, but, as mentioned, property values seem to remain stable. This is also true at the Scottsdale Airport, where homes surround the airport. Historically, those values have held also.

Submitted by kflyer89 on December 2, 2007 - 5:56pm.

OK...BEFORE ANYONE GET"S CARRIED AWAY!!!...

All of you are not educated on the project enough to know what the project is. It really makes me upset. FIRST OF ALL, the airport is not being expanded. The terminal is being put on the existing ground, and no other land is being used. SECOND, the runway is not being expanded. It can't. If you were educated enough, the airport lies on top of the old landfill, which is why when you drive west on Palomar Airport Road, you see the runway dipping. The ground is not stable to handle another portion of runway, and due to FAA regulations on certain types of approaches, there isn't enough room to add one.
I was involved with the County when the conceptual plan came out, and i was also at the meeting where it was presented. I am also a pilot based out of palomar, and MOST IMPORTANT, i am a resident of Carlsbad that is "affected" by the noise...The plan was told time and time again to be a "RENOVATION PROJECT" not an "EXPANSION PROJECT" like the media has been saying. Right now, the terminal is a portable building. The new terminal will be a "SOLID" structure. It will allow more safety and the ability to have easier long term parking and a "drive up" terminal like San Diego or most commercial airports do have. Bressi Ranch is the stupidest thing i've heard of, but that's not for me to judge. I'm a college student trying to pay car payments, not 100's of thousands of dollars on a house. Understand this please. I am saying the solid facts here, nothing more or less. i haven't accused anybody of anything except voicing their opinions with incorrect information. Think about it, We cannot expand the runway. It's physically impossible! All their doing is making the passenger experience better/easier, and making you, the consumer safer as well.

that's all i have to say. and please understand, i am stretched in the middle of everything, i ask 1 thing from EVERYONE! Please do not complain about noise from Mercy Air/Life Flight Helicopters. They are trying to save people's lives, and getting to the patient as fast as possible. Don't restrict them and makes someone wait and extra few minutes for help, because that could mean life or death in that kind of situation. For god's sake, what if that was you who needed help!? -

The educated one...

Submitted by Bubblesitter on February 16, 2008 - 8:03am.

There was an letter to the editor in today's UT North county titled "Palomar Airport Ignores concerns of Residents". I don't have link, but it was written by some pissed off Carlsbad resident.

This is another example of the incompetence of the Carlsbad planning commission.

They approved plans to put high density residential next to Palomar airport, one of the busiest single runaway region airports in the country.

In addition to the planned Walmart at College and Camino Real, this is another example of poorly thought out planning that did not anticipate objections by residents.

Bubblesitter

Submitted by svelte on February 16, 2008 - 11:12am.

THIS AIRPORT IS ONE OF THE BUSIEST SMALL AIRPORTS IN THE COUNTRY

Kind of like saying someone is the tallest short person around, isn't it?

It all depends upon your definition of small! An attempt to make a situation look extreme when it's really not.

Submitted by Bubblesitter on February 16, 2008 - 11:42am.

Nearly 300,000 flight operations a year is considered very high for a single runway General aviation airport.

Pulled from the Palomar Airport Association site.

http://www.palomarairportassociation.com...

FICTION-1: "...the airport isn't that busy..."
FACT-1: Intensity: There IS a lot of aircraft ACTIVITY over this area today and it will increase. Palomar Airport is a VERY BUSY GA airport. In 1999 it had a peak of 292,000 operations--the busiest single runway airport in the nation. The airport is one of the busiest in the nation. Contributing factors in 1999 were 4 flight schools and increasing commercial aviation. The airport now has 5 flight schools, 2 flying clubs and 2 regularly scheduled airline services (FAA Part 121). In addition, Palomar is quickly becoming a major jet center for North County. Many of the factors that created peak airport demand are again in place and more......

Submitted by Bubblesitter on February 16, 2008 - 12:02pm.

In the interest of fairness, here's the site for the local group complaining about all the noise.

http://loudairport.com/press.html

Again, the Carlbad planning commission screwed up royally on this one. This makes that sunroad tower issue (building was too high next to airport) look like a walk in the park.

Submitted by desmond on February 16, 2008 - 2:05pm.

How do you think Roger Decoster feels?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s2PFBcwtM_s

Submitted by Bugs on February 16, 2008 - 3:32pm.

I don't care much one way or the other about the airport. Expand or contract, makes no difference to me.

HOWEVER, that airport and the surrounding business park was there long before the houses were. As far as I'm concerned, if there was any poor planning involved it was on the part of the people who bought in those areas without first deciding whether they could live in proximity to an airport.

Not only should their complaints be roundfiled, they should reimburse the city and the airport authority for costs associated with this frivolous opposition. Grow up and stop whining.

Submitted by djc on February 18, 2008 - 5:03am.

what a bunch of idiots. Moving next to an airport then complaining the noise is higher than you anticipated or presumed is ridiculous. Nothing ever stays 'as is' whether it is streets, highways, or airports.

I work very close to the airport runway and hear more noise on a daily basis with take-off and landings (reverse thrust) then they hear at 200 feet up. I tell you what, it sure beats a barking or yapping Paris Hilton dog I get to listen to at home.

Submitted by CBad on February 19, 2008 - 12:25am.

I totally agree Bugs. It's like the guy who moved next to the Sandbar and then took out a full page ad complaining about the noise. Remember that?

Submitted by Deal Hunter on February 19, 2008 - 12:31am.

I know "grass is always greener," but geez people, it's CARLSBAD for goodness sake! You have the beautiful pacific just yards away. I'm in the Southern Nevada desert (unitl I can afford to move to SD county) and I'd love the problem of getting used to airport noise to live in Carlsbad.

Submitted by NewtoSanDiego on December 23, 2008 - 1:59pm.

I found this one in the archives.

I think the new airport terminal just opened up last weekend.

Anybody see how nice it is?

Submitted by jiggy on January 15, 2009 - 10:56am.

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.

Submitted by flu on January 15, 2009 - 11:33am.

jiggy wrote:
Get Your Facts Straight.......

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.

Submitted by Deserted on January 15, 2009 - 2:05pm.

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/a...
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?s...

Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_i...

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.

Submitted by jiggy on January 15, 2009 - 9:21pm.

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.

Submitted by jiggy on January 15, 2009 - 9:30pm.

Thank you for your diligent research before you commented on my post. It amazes me that people just fire back without the proper information. You are correct about the accident statistics. It is, in a word, alarming. I do not have a fear of planes or pilots (I have many clients and friends who are pilots, and also who fly out of Palomar). I also would not have become involved in the cause if it were simply to fix the noise, since as I mentioned I was made aware of the airport when I purchased my home.

BUT as a mother, a resident of Carlsbad, and as an advocate for doing what is right I decided to join this cause. Our group has so much information compiled and I am still learning a lot, but what I have seen so far is very disturbing. Bill Horn, who is our elected representative and should deal with safety issues, has refused to acknowledge this problem. The PAAC tells us we are "complainers" who want the airport to go away. The media incorrectly quotes us as a group against the noise. WE ARE FIGHTING TO CHANGE PROCEDURE AT THE AIRPORT TO SPARE THE LOSS OF LIVES. That is our cause.

I am so glad contrarian understands our safety concern. I beg the rest of you to do your research as well.

Submitted by jiggy on January 15, 2009 - 9:37pm.

I have a question for flu: is it CONVENIENT to cut over homes on takeoff, often times at a very low altitude, rather than going an extra mile and a half to two miles to turn in order to lessen the potential damage from a crash? Several planes have crashed into the new $67 million golf course and the canyon. Can you imagine if those planes had veered immediately southwest over homes instead of flying the recommended "voluntary" route? I shudder to think of it. Many times it is better to be forget convenience when it is overshadowed by safety issues and doing the right thing!

Submitted by flu on January 15, 2009 - 10:38pm.

jiggy wrote:
I have a question for flu: is it CONVENIENT to cut over homes on takeoff, often times at a very low altitude, rather than going an extra mile and a half to two miles to turn in order to lessen the potential damage from a crash? Several planes have crashed into the new $67 million golf course and the canyon. Can you imagine if those planes had veered immediately southwest over homes instead of flying the recommended "voluntary" route? I shudder to think of it. Many times it is better to be forget convenience when it is overshadowed by safety issues and doing the right thing!

Well, personally I wouldn't make the decision to buy a home that would be near a flight path or potential flightpath of an airport, planned or unintentional since I value the safety for my family versus trying to get a bigger home for the bang for buck ... but that's just me....

And it seemed like the city of CB really screwed up to allow permits to be around there so close, but it seems like considering the route is "voluntary" and if Palomar/FAA or whatever isn't going to change the thing, what standing is there for getting things to change. It just seems like it would be a completely different situation if you bought your home and then the airport was built around it....I could see why you would be pissed. But the airport came before your home.

It seemed to me that for example a few folks that bought a home in Carmel Valley too near a powerline during the hype (and now are having a problem selling those homes because of suboptimal location because the more informed consumer think there there is some link between emf from power lines and leukemia) are sort of blaming the builder for not disclosing potential dangers of power lines when the obvious is sort of right in front of them (or i should say, right in their backyard).

The second point you make on the complaint is about the noise level, and quite hours. While I can sort of see the merits of the safety issue in your first point, I don't see were #2 would be, considering again I don't think Palomar was grandfathered into one of those airports that had mandatory curfews for takeoff or landing.

I'm not calling you an idiot or anything. It's an honest question. Why did you buy near an airport?

Submitted by DWCAP on January 15, 2009 - 10:52pm.

flu, i thought the same thing but didnt feel like being yelled at for not "understanding". If making sure your family is safe was such a big deal to you, why did you buy right next to an airport. There are so many other nice places in SD county, it isnt like you couldnt have found anything else. And if you didnt know it was "optional" to fly over the tracks, then it says to me you didnt do your homework and are now trying to deflect onto others.

Submitted by flu on January 15, 2009 - 11:00pm.

jiggy wrote:
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.

And if you value your children's life as the most important thing, and you fear for their safety and fear there is imminent danger, bite the bullet and move out right now. It's just money for christ sake.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.