Thank you for your prompt response.
First this is not a simple noise complaint issue, as you state. The city, county and federal governments are involved, and engaged, with the FAA (per my citations). They rarely do that. The FAA also rarely allow an alternative flight path, so stating that is significant and very relevant as it was implemented to deal with the Surf Air noise, and they certainly wouldn’t do that for a ’simple’ noise complaint. Second, there was legal action against the County because of Surf Air - not because of general airport noise. Third, the county is about to vote on spending an initial $1M (US$) to begin dealing with the Surf Air noise (not stated yet in the edits, but significant). Fourth, a prominent aviation consultant deemed the Part 135 operator ( specifically Surf) as less safe than typical commercial airline operators. Most people are unaware of this distinction.
If this was “a simple noise complaint issue”, which I agree can occur around any airport, I severely doubt that all the above constitutes ’simple’. A simple noise complaint is someone calling the airport and complaining that their cat was startled when an aircraft flew overhead.
I understand your point about the amount of content that was submitted. That begs the question, what is the correct proportion? Currently there is a significant amount of marketing/business information about Surf on that page, vs factual information about the company operations. The replacement edits/summary falls far short of providing the correct amount of information necessary to describe this noise situation. The points above are the minimum details that are relevant and factual.
In addition, the edited summary is inaccurate - even false - as it implies a general noise problem. This is not a general noise problem. This is a noise problem specifically caused by Surf Air with well documented details provided by 3rd party press and city, county, and federal documents. The summary implies all aircraft using KSQL are contributors to the noise (false) and ‘Calm The Skies” was formed to deal with that general noise (false). Even the summary heading is wrong. “Noise Complaints at San Carlos Airport”. While the statement is accurate as to geographical location, it completely sugar coats and implies general aviation noise. The heading should read “Noise Complaints Directed at Surf Air” to be accurate. To be clear, the noise is caused by one operator: Surf Air. That needs to be clearly stated and cited.
Please understand, the amount of information provided is because this is a very complicated and unique issue specific to Surf Air that goes beyond simple aviation noise complaints. Even major airports like ORD, DFW, SFO and others that receive significant noise complaints are not dealing with a single operator causing the noise. They are dealing with all operators contributing to the overall noise problems. There are a lot of details that are contributing to this topic and specifically how Surf Air is at the center of it as levels of government and federal agencies jockey to assert their positions while residents are working to mitigate the noise.
As a side note, the majority of the Surf Air Wikipedia entry reads like a promotional marketing piece created by Surf Air. And maybe that’s where I’m not clear: the true purpose of Wikipedia. Is it marketing dissertations that serve the better interests of the owners of a company, or fact based entries documenting events and relevant information of public interest and historical record?
David
On Jun 24, 2017, at 6:40 PM, stlcardinals0@comcast.net wrote:
The writing in the article is certainly written in the style of an agenda whether it was intended to be that way or not. An article should be written with no point of view. There is no doubt it is of interest the article which is why there is a smaller section at the bottom and not completely deleted like the last edit was. However, coming up to an article where 75% of the page is about this one issue is an issue. Someone who is looking for some info on the airline is completely bombarded by info about a simple noise complaint issue which happens at airports across the country.