Mr. Purdy,

Please note the distinction between SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA meetings and PCPB meetings. I am a volunteer member of Peninsula Community Planning Board that meets regularly to vet all community positions regarding land use planning including SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA operations at Lindbergh. I strongly suggest you review minutes of PCPB Airport Committee online www.pcpb.net/airport and start attending these meetings to convey all your concerns. Thank you.

That said, when I say "community," I really mean it. I don't think that the neighborhoods under the standard vectors should have to shoulder all of the noise burdens. And I recognize the economic interests of expansion of the airport, as well as what I assume are fuel cost savings to the airlines when they are allowed to depart on a truer course.

If the 10 gate expansion will obviously mean an increased flight volume, then SDIA needs to disclose the new numbers in comparison with the old and work with the community. For example, it's possible that the new larger number could be broken out across the expanded flight vectors (that SDIA currently denies they’re using) such that the neighborhoods under the standard vectors would actually see some reduction in volume when flights are relatively equally shared over the multiple north-south vectors (4 standard vectors, vice the current 2).

It would also be the right thing to do to distribute the early 0630 flights across these multiple vectors on different days. No one neighborhood should have to get pounded every morning for 2-3 hours straight, if it's not presently the case that every vector is getting maximized at 0630, and there are actually available redistribution options.

All the new 0630 flights in Sunset Cliffs never used to be there with the current regularity and volume, so they obviously don't need to be there now without the existence of 10 new gates, except that SDIA has simply elected to put them there. But if the airport will need the wider north-south vectors to accommodate expansion, why shouldn't the airport be required to alternate mornings across the vectors, or some similar arrangement, if there's open volume on the vectors, so that each neighborhood can actually have some quiet(er) mornings, etc.

Utimately I think it's possible that the increased flight volume has the potential to be equitably distributed across expanded vectors, in a way that actually reduces the impact to the neighborhoods under the long-time standard vectors. However, if it's the case that the standard vectors are currently being maxxed out right now, anyway, and not just lesser used as more flights are directed on truer north-south vectors (and will remain that way for the 10 gate expansion), then I imagine the community in general will simply resist the expanded vectors altogether.

Like I said, community-wise, I am willing to share the burden. I am just not willing to allow SDIA et al to simply be a dictator to the community. There is potential for everyone to actually get out of this thing with a genuine politics of sharing, something I think everyone should feel, especially these days.

Anyway, just some thoughts re expansion, which of course, may be inaccurate. The primary goal is to get SDIA et al to (1) 'fess up and/or desist regarding the non-standard overflights they currently deny, which could then enable an actual dialogue with the community for shared solutions for the future.

Suhail, okay, fair enough, I do see this quote involving your position on the matter (http://www.examiner.com/x-18134-AirlinesAirport-Examiner~y2009m10d30-Community-leaders-voice-concerns-to-Senator-Kehoe-on-San-Diego-Airport-issues):

"As to expanded use of the 250-degree departure vector, Mr. Kahlil commented that there has been an increased frequency of flights south of the 275-degree vector in the past year, and has requested data from the FAA and Airport Authority to show traffic usage along these vectors. He also asked, "Why doesn't the FAA allow the Airport Authority to utilize their noise monitors to measure if there are increases over 65 dB (along the more southernly departures)?"

However, again, our frustation is that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA are totally denying the existence of the 250s, or whatever they're calling them (or not calling them at all, actually) the southerly non-standard (non-275) overflights.

They've been doing this since last summer 2009, and since the time of that meeting, 22 October 2009.

Out in the community many of us want our elected representatives to quit mincing words with respect to SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA fallacious denials, and, instead, directly demand that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA tell it like it is. We're frustrated that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA has simply been allowed to repeatedly make these denials that are clearly false, and that you and Kevin are not more forcefully speaking out that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA are making false claims to the public.

Of course, what we all fear out here, in the newly impacted communities is what Paul Grimes said in that same 22 October 2009 meeting:

"Paul Grimes, who has worked in the airline industry as an executive with Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) asked, "What happens in the future when there are increased flights?", implying that more departures along all approved vectors are inevitable."

The 10 gate expansion of Lindbergh and their excessive plan to increase flight capacity to what have historically only been peak levels is what many of us feel is the real reason by SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA colluding to increase these non-standard overflights now, using Taxiway C construction as the initial pre-text, test of the waters, before the 10 gate expansion actually necessitates the permanent use of the non-standard (250) vector.

To us, the SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA's current public denials of the present use of the non-standard vectors is how they are implementing their plan

to make the non-standard permanent.

That's why we're crying out now, demanding that our elected representatives do too, so as not to let SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA carry out this subterfuge while the community complaints are fallaciously denied and/or stonewalled, as we wait for more formal results like a potential CA DOT flight track audit.

An extenuated period of community/elected representative inaction is SDIA/SCRAA/FAA's friend while they continue to create the "facts on the ground" of the reality of the permanent non-standard overflights.

We can't play along with that and give them all of that time to create that new reality.

We need our elected representatives to demand the real answers now.

Sincerely,

Colin Purdy

Suhail,

Obviously if I was referencing my own name in the 28 May SDCRAA letter that I was referencing, I wasn't trying to hide my "true identity," as you seem to suggest.

Suggesting, too, that I have some "personal prejudice against" you is what is actually an "insulting unproductive method of communication."

Those questionable attributions aside, the reality of my complaint is that I have not seen you or Kevin directly charge the various SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA POCs with immediately answering to/resolving the bizarre contradiction between the obvious reality of the overflights I discuss, below, and their unwillingness or inability to acknowledge that reality in print or on the phone.

That's it. As a member of the PCPB community, I am simply complaining to you that when I initially made the complaint to SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA, and ever thereafter, I have not received any credible answer from them at all, and instead have told all manner of oddity, or nothing at all, instead, as discussed, below.

This situation is analogous to a customer making a reasonable complaint to a company and receiving the run around instead.

I have just wanted you to compel the SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA to knock it off with nonsensical answers and silence. I mean, how can they not know about the overflights I am talking about?!

What's more, contradictory to Kevin's urging that they return to standard flight paths post-Taxiway C construction, SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA have all insisted, by way of the Union Tribune article, and the multiple meetings that you cite below, that they've not diverted any flights due to Taxiway C construction?! Okay, I guess. But the overflights are there, so what's the real reason for them, if not due to the construction?

Why shouldn't I demand that you and Kevin compel the SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA POCs to immediately answer for these glaring discrepancies.

Certainly, Suhail, I appreciate all that you have done, as you itemize, below, but my frustration stemmed from the more basic level of the "customer service" type scenario that I mentioned, above.

I'm just a member of the community out here who expected that I'd get a reasonable response to the obviously real question about what all these non-standard overflights are all about, when the Taxiway C mailer had suggested the potential of only a "slight increase" in non-standard overflights. And then the actual reality was a HUGE increase.

When I called and wrote SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA, not only did they say they haven't even diverted any flights because of Taxiway C construction, they went even further and said these overflights don't even exist!

My frustation is that no one in position of responsibility as forced the SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA to cease this fallacy. And it's been very frustrating because the reality of the planes in the sky is pretty obvious, so how can these folks just tell us it's not true, with impunity, without you and Kevin pulling them aside immediately and saying, hey, answer the question for real?

I understand and appreciate that you are instigating for the CA DOT audit of flight tracks. And that should definitely be done. But, again, I'm coming from the perspective of the little guy on the street getting the run around from "customer service," and no one is demanding a better immediate answer from SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA.

Instead we are being told to wait for sometime in the future audit of flight tracks. Yes, that does need to be made a matter of record. But it's the immediate outrageous and unanswered imposition of the SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA on the community that make people want a more immediate action/rebuke by our elected representation.

For example, the 21 October 2009 meeting, Mr. Borcalli's parallax answer. It was very upsetting to me to read that in the meeting minutes, but not see in those meeting minutes any rebuttal from you or Matt Awbrey (Kevin's rep), any OTR support to the citizen whose question prompted Mr. Borcalli's nonsensical parallax answer.

That's all. I appreciate the "official" actions and work you've put into this, as you dicuss below. Really. It's all necessary. It's just that the immediate outrage of the situation shouldn't be allowed to persist as it has without our elected representation speaking up in support of the community in real-time when SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA are presently refusing to really answer our questions at these meetings and in our emails.

As to my not attending these meetings. You are right, I've declined thus far, and I should change that. Only, it's really frustrating to imagine having to sit and listen in these meetings to SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA not genuinely responding to questions about the obvious reality. I certainly haven't gotten any credible responses, myself, outside of these meetings, and I haven't seen any credible responses in any of the meeting minutes.

It just seems like a frustrating waste of time to have sit in a "kangaroo court" wherein the responsible parties (SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA and our elected representation) listen to the community complain but don't offer up credible response that directly acknowledge the reality of these non-standard overflights.

If I am missing such possible credible responses that are actually occurring during the meetings, and just not recorded in the minutes, then, yes, I'm missing something by not attending, and I should correct that.

But if and when I do attend and politely ask SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA about all of these far south non-standard overflights, and they respond by continuing to deny the reality of what I am seeing with my own two eyes, then I will continue to expect and demand that you acknowedge this reality, too, and, in your role with SDIA, demand that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA give an immediate and real answer.

We shouldn't have to wait for an official CA DOT flight track audit in order for our elected representatives to unequivocally demand that SDIA/SDCRAA/FAA answer up to the obvious audit performed every day by the community's many eyes and ears.

Thank You,

Colin Purdy

Dear SunsetCliffs a.k.a. Colin Purdy,

Thank you for referencing the letter I received from SDCRAA May 28th to reveal your true identity. Your identity will allow readers to continue to follow my replies to you as such.

In response to your 2nd comment June 5th at 6:53pm, I chaired PCPB Airport Committee between 2008 and 2010. During my leadership, I have conducted monthly airport committee meetings to address SDIA adverse affects on our community and formally conveyed all matters to city, state and congressional officials regularly. Public notices for all PCPB Airport Committee meetings have been posted online, Beacon News and Point Loma Library. Agenda topics, action items and attendance of each committee and community member have been well documented in published minutes online at www.pcpb.net/airport for anyone to reference. I find it interesting that you have never attended any of these meetings, yet you have the impudence to question my genuine support to our community.

Let us again shed light on the facts; I am the PCPB member who engaged Kevin Faulconer on SDIA non-standard overflights (reference examiner article; http://www.examiner.com/x-18134-AirlinesAirport-Examiner~y2009m10d30-Community-leaders-voice-concerns-to-Senator-Kehoe-on-San-Diego-Airport-issues) I received special commendations from Kevin Faulconer thanking me for my service to my community. Kevin Faulconer and PCPB have requested that I remain involved with SDIA issues to ensure SDCRAA transparency and accountability. I will not revert to insulting methods of unproductive communication as you suggest. I am already on record questioning the degree of accuracy of SDIA online flight tracker and have made demands to Congresswoman Susan Davis to initiate a DOT Audit, as former Congressman Brian Bilbray did in 2000 to protect our community from SDIA non-standard overflights.

I do not find the need to dissuade you in the least. Your personal prejudice against me provides our community enough evidence that you are genuinely more interested in politicization then productive dialogue for the greater good of our community.

Thanks again for your response, sincerely.



Just to clarify my very simple issue (as I must assume that

some of you think me a crank), let me cite the 30

September 2009 email from Mr. Tittle to Mr. Frazee, that is

attached to the end of the 28 May 2010 letter from SDCRAA to

Suhail. And you can view the document for yourselves

at http://pcpb.net/agendas/airport/raa/10528rraresponseto7questions2.pdf



At the end of that email, Mr. Tittle, who apparently was

responding to Mr. Frazee's inquiry regarding at least my

emails (thanks, sincerely, gentlemen, for at least

discussing it), Mr. Tittle says, "...what would he see if he

was sitting at Abbot St. and Santa Monica Ave? Most likely

that the aircraft are directly overhead."



This statement is exactly the crux of my complaint.

Yes, I certainly would see planes directly overhead were I

to sit at that street corner, for that is the 275, as we've

all seen it drawn on the map.



However, my point this entire time, since mid-late last

summer, has been that there are many, many overflights every

day starting at 0630 that are reaching the Pacific 10-14

blocks south of that Abbot/Santa Monica street corner.



That this is true is simply and easily observable every day

basically all day long. I just don't understand where

the disconnect is here between my easily verfiable naked eye

observation and Mr. Tittle's apparent attestation that no

flights south of that Abbot/Santa Monica corner are

happening.



If it's an honest misunderstanding, then I certainly

apologize for accusing folks of lying and/or stonewalling.



But, what would you all have me think when I am watching

and hearing flights all day long as far south of Abbot/Santa

Monica (14 blocks) as the end of Bermuda Ave., but the

Airport is telling me that it isn't happening?!



I mean, one is simply left to think that in the face of

obvious truth, when someone is misstating something in the

face of that truth, that they must be either ignorant of the

situation or lying.



So, I apologize if I have offended anyone, but my case is

at least an appeal to simple rationality that cannot be

denied, based, again, on the simply observable reality of

many, many flights a day reaching the Pacific 10-14 blocks

south of the Abbot/Santa Monica.



I believe it was Mr. Borcalli, FAA, who said at the 21

October 2009 meeting, in response to Sue Sprague, that we in

the community are mistaken. That our observations are

actually "parallax," i.e., that it is just our position on

the ground relative to the location of the aircraft in the

sky that make the aircraft appear to be closer to us than

they really are.



But that simply isn't true. It isn't parallax making

me think that an airplane I'm practically tailspotting with

naked eye on my Bermuda Ave. doorstep (i.e., real darn

close!) is actually physically located 10-14 blocks

north.



The physical reality is that I simply can't see at all from

my Bermuda doorstep flights that are reaching Pacific at

Abbot/Santa Monica, much less tailspot them!!!



I've lived in Ocean Beach on both Orchard and Bermuda Aves.

for 4-5 years, and one big reason I chose to live on these

more southerly streets was because they were not under the

275.



Now, fast forward to summer 2009, all of the sudden I'm

darn near directly under a flight path. It's an

obvious change in my environment that was easily

noticed. I mean, I didn't used to need ear plugs to

sleep past 0630. That's not parallax.



Oh, and I was even mistaken to say 10-14 blocks, it's actually more like 16 blocks between Abbot/Santa Monica and Bermuda.

And I understand that flights don't follow one single straight path over and over again, that there is variation. However, when ever the Airport folks have even acknowledged any southerly variation from the 275, they've only said things like "crabbing," etc. But those explanations don't account for the 10-16 block distance variations, and certainly don't account for the extreme daily regularity and volume of flights reaching the Pacific close to the end of Bermuda Ave. and the several blocks just north.

Suhail, I agree that you did warm/notify the community about the imminent expansion. A search of your past commentaries in this paper prove that.

However, one has due cause to wonder at your stewardship of the issue now that the expansion has actually occurred and the Airport people whom you have access to are now stonewalling and denying community complaints about the non-standard overflights.

I'm not the only one whom the Airport has done this to. The Airport has both said that they've neither diverted any flights due to Taxiway C construction and also that these non-standard overflights we've all complained about don't even exist. They actually had the nerve to say we we're simply mistaking "parallax" for actual overflight locations!

And you haven't spoken up for the community this obvious abuse.

If that's what my "politicization" of this issue is, than I'm fairly charged with "politicizing" the issue.

Of course, in this case, "politicization" simply means requesting from our elected representatives that they please support the communities they purport to.

Thank you, so far, Kevin Faulconer, for going on record and attesting that the Airport has been sending non-standard overflights. (http://sdnews.com/view/full_story/7235488/article-Airport-needs-to-be-a-good-neighbor-?)

You can dissuade me right here, right now, from my view that you are not genuinely supporting the residents of the PCPB constituency on this matter by acknowledging, like Kevin did, that the Airport is diverting from standard flight paths, and by calling out, like Kevin did, that the Airport return to standard overflights ASAP.

Mind you, the ridiculous irony of this is that the Airport has been denying all along that they even diverted any flights due to Taxiway C, and denied completely the presences of the non-standard overflights, whatever the reason.

And that kind of treatment of the community has really made a lot of folks upset with the Airport, but also our elected representation when that representation doesn't acknowledge this obvious reality.

So, please, Suhail, disabuse of my cynicism of your motives by replying with your acknowledgement that (1) the Airport has sent quite a lot of non-standard overflights (basically "countless," starting last summer), (2) that the Airport has misrepresented this to the community (I'm being nice; they've lied), and (3) join Kevin, in print, urging the Airport to return to standard flight paths ASAP.

I honestly have no idea why you haven't done so already. And that is my complaint. It isn't personal, it's not an attack, it's not cheap "politics." It is a valid complaint voiced by many folks experiencing the intransigence of the Aiport and the unwillingness of you and, until, lately, Kevin, to go to bat for us directly.

Thank you for your early warnings and the letter to Davis and Kehoe. But the Airport is doing this to us right now, everyday, and I haven't witnessed your acknowledgement, seen any guest commentaries in this paper, about you speaking up for us to all of those Airport folks you know, against the situation, discussed above, that they've imposed on the community.

Thank you Mr. Purdy for proving my point about cynics who have chosen to deceive rather then tell the truth. Our community is fed up with cynical statements like yours.

I was the one Beacon interviewed to alert the community about Airport expansion of flight vectors in August, 2009. My record at all Airport meetings, Congressional and State legislative meetings is on record protecting our community from all flight path deviations south of normal headings. All anyone needs to do is go to www.pcpb.net/airport to see what PCPB has accomplished under my leadership. I have been working with Kevin Faulconer and Congresswoman Davis to initiate a CA Department Of Transportation audit on SDIA flight tracks between 2008-present.

These issues are much to important for you to politicize. Honestly, our community deserves honesty and integrity which you obviously are lacking.

Since late last summer, when the Airport mailed out a flyer about the 9 month Taxiway C project and the accompanying potential for a "slight increase" in overflights over neighborhoods not usually flown over, the Airport has been sending a HUGE increase of overflights outside of the standard paths, and yet has continually denied they've diverted a single flight.

Even Kevin Faulconer wrote a guest commentary in this paper last month "urging" the airport to return to "standard" flight paths.

Yes, Kevin Faulconer is now on the record agreeing with community member complaints of non-standard overflights.

And yet Suhail Khalil, who has handled Airport matters for PCPB, has been completely silent on the matter, despite numerous rational (i.e., discussions, not berations) email entreaties to both him, Faulconer, and numerous other responsible parties, including Airport contacts.

Suhail Khalil has allowed the Airport folks to continue brazenly denying the expansion of flight vectors and has never once, to my knowledge, acknowledged to the community that the Airport is behaving badly.

Regarding the upcoming special "election" on PCPB. After four "arduous" elections... (Really? Am I working so hard to come out and vote for an ethical board member; is it so hard to host a 4-hour election night for a few hundred voters every few weeks until a majority vote is obtained? That Suhail Khalil thinks so should tell you a lot about where Khalil's allegiance lies, obviously not with the majority rule of the community).

So, after four arduous elections, Suhail Khalil was defeated by a majority vote in favor of Geoff Page, a former chairman of PCPB.

And yet, now, immediately after that election that the community arduously participated in, Matt Sanicki coincidentally decides to resign his board membership, and PCPB decides to appoint a new boardmember by vote of only the board.

Boy, what a way to honor the arduous participation of the community in electing Geoff Page in the first place?!

It is extremely cynical and dismissive of the community board election process, and the whole reason for elections in the first place, for PCPB to turn right around after such a competitive run-off process, an election which I believe was probably the highest community turnout that anyone can remember, for PCPB to immediately after that run-off suddenly decide that they will now appoint a new board member all by themselves.

For the ultimate confirmation of this cynicism, let's all watch in the coming weeks, 17 June, I believe, when Charles Mellor, Chair, and the rest of the PCPB, appoint Suhail Khalil to the board just weeks after hundreds of community members turned out repeatedly to ensure that he was voted off of the board.

By the way, the board meetings are open to the public. So, if you want to watch Mellor and PCPB thumb their noses at the arduous will of the community who already voted down Suhail Khalil, come to the 17 June meeting at the Pt Loma Library (refer to pcpb.net for more info), and watch Mellor and PCPB undo the community election process by cynically appointing Suhail Khalil to the board instead.