Technical working group reviews Fly Quiet scoring, plans workshop to refine metrics

The Technical Working Group Subcommittee on April 29 reviewed a proposed update to the Fly Quiet program for San Francisco International Airport, hearing a staff presentation on new scoring elements and agreeing to convene a workshop to refine metrics and improve airline and pilot engagement.

Bert, the staff presenter, outlined the program’s proposed scoring elements — including a fleet noise-quality rating, noise-exceedance counts from 29 peninsula monitors, nighttime runway/offset preferences, early-turn (visual approach) pass/fail scoring, Woodside gate-altitude compliance, shoreline and RNAV/stick departure altitude brackets, gap vectoring/gate compliance, and ground engine runup timing. “Points are awarded to airlines based on the type of aircraft they operate at SFO,” Bert said, describing a fleet score computed from actual airport operations. He also explained CNEL time-weighting (evening and nighttime flights carry added weight) and that some scores are normalized per 1,000 operations.

Why it matters: the program is intended to incentivize airlines to reduce noise impacts on peninsula communities, but members and public commenters emphasized that responsibility for deviations is sometimes shared — or driven — by air-traffic control decisions, and that scoring should avoid unfairly penalizing airlines when ATC directs vectors for safety or traffic separation.

Members and commenters raised two consistent themes. First, accountability: several participants urged the group to verify whether early turns or gate misses were pilot-initiated or the result of ATC vectoring before applying penalties. Glenn Morris, a retired airline pilot who spoke during public comment, recommended reviewing ATC tapes before penalizing airlines: “It’s always essential to go back and listen to the ATC tapes…to ensure the pilots were doing what they were told,” Morris said. Staff agreed and noted the program has historically reviewed communications when assigning penalties.

Second, equity and measurement: public commenters asked the group to evaluate how each element affects downstream communities differently and to avoid relying solely on ground-track visualizations. Darlene Yapley said ground tracks alone are “insufficient” and warned that altitude minimums intended to protect one community could shift noise to others. Mary Joe Fremont urged adding elements such as a ‘Bodega over the bay’ arrival split and refining noise-exceedance thresholds by procedure and comparable aircraft types.

Members discussed outreach to pilots and airlines as critical to producing real behavior change. The group reviewed prior outreach tactics — chief-pilot newsletters, pilot-lounge displays and airline recognition awards — and debated whether incentives should be airline-level (the staff preference) or targeted to pilot groups. Pilot Paul, speaking from operational experience, cautioned that crews under time pressure may request vectors to make up delays and said the program must be realistic about human factors: “I’m just putting the human side on this,” he said, describing line crews facing delayed passengers and tight schedules.

Staff also presented a 24-year trend chart showing modest overall program score movement but noticeable fleet-noise improvements as airlines introduce quieter aircraft. Bert noted procedural and airspace changes (for example, Metroplex/RNAV implementations and FAA runway assignment decisions) have at times offset fleet-level noise improvements.

Outcome and next steps: rather than finalizing scoring changes, the subcommittee agreed to pursue a focused workshop or small ad hoc group to drill down on equity, operational feasibility, pilot outreach and data methodology before forwarding recommendations to the round table. Staff said written public comments had been received and posted for the record. The meeting closed with members thanking participants and staff; the Chair adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

The subcommittee did not take any formal votes during the session; staff will return proposed refinements after the workshop/ad hoc work is completed.