Palm Beach Quiet Skies CoalitionEspañol

The FAA's decision is still pending

Planes now fly over our homes to avoid a zone at Mar-a-Lago.The FAA wants to make that zone permanent.

Join the Coalition →

Our mission

Peace and quiet for our neighborhoods. Security for the President. We can have both.

Palm Beach Quiet Skies Coalition is a nonpartisan group of neighbors in Palm Beach and West Palm Beach, run by volunteers.

What it's like now

The Palm Beach Pause, a short film from the Coalition. Watch on YouTube

Residents describe being woken at night, interrupted conversations, and patios they no longer use.1

Hear it for yourself: a resident's phone recording →

Join the Coalition

Sign up to be counted as a supporter of our mission: peace and quiet for our neighborhoods, and security for the President. We count supporters, not names: your name is never published. We'll also email you when there is news that matters, such as the FAA's decision or a public meeting. Email is all we need; texts are optional.

Neighborhoods directly under the flight paths

Palm Beach: Estate Section, Everglades Island, Mid-town

West Palm Beach: Historic El Cid, Flamingo Park, Grandview Heights, Poinciana Park, Prospect Heights, Prospect Park

What we're asking the FAA to do

  1. Study the noise before anything becomes permanent, looking at both the flight paths and the restriction together.
  2. Explain why the full restriction must apply every day of the year, and review it at least every two years and when this presidency ends.
  3. Explain why the restricted zone is 2,000 feet high when the Secret Service originally requested 1,000 feet, and evaluate a 1,000-foot zone. The Secret Service originally requested 1,000 feet in writing at both Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower in New York. The FAA granted 1,000 feet in New York but chose 2,000 here. Before the restriction, nearly all departures crossed this area above 1,000 feet, so a lower zone could help bring back the old route over the ocean.
  4. Hold a public meeting in Palm Beach County.

Our goal: departures back over the ocean, where they flew until October 2025, for as many flights as security allows. Palm Beach County, which runs the airport, has asked the FAA for the same.2

Read all five of our requests, and the evidence behind each →

What we've done so far

We filed a formal comment with the FAA. Our lawyer prepared it for the Coalition, backed by our aviation and acoustics experts, signed statements from residents and data from our noise monitors. It raises key questions about the proposed rule, proposes specific changes to it, and asks the FAA to answer each of its 12 numbered requests.3

We helped neighbors be heard. We reached residents who hadn't heard about the FAA's proposal, explained why commenting mattered, and helped them write to the FAA.

2,100+

signatures on our petition to the FAA.4

505

comments to the FAA were sent through this website by the October 2 deadline.5

12

residents gave the FAA signed statements on how the flights have changed their lives.6

What happens next

Comments have closed, but the FAA's decision is still pending. It says it will consider every comment received by the deadline before deciding whether and how to finalize the rule. The temporary restriction runs until October 20, 2026; the FAA's own cost analysis assumes it will continue until a final rule replaces it.7 We will report what the FAA decides, and what residents can do about it.

You can read the comments, including our petition and the County's, in the FAA's public comment file.

Join the Coalition. Sign up to be counted as a supporter, and we'll tell you when the FAA decides and when residents can act again. Then share this page with a neighbor.

Sources and details

  1. Residents' accounts: twelve declarations filed with the Coalition's comment of October 2, 2026 (Exhibit G). ↩
  2. Secret Service letter of September 16, 2025 (docket item FAA-2026-10827-0003): one nautical mile, from the surface to 1,000 feet above the ground, at both Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. The proposal says the two agencies later "agreed to a 2,000 feet AGL altitude ceiling" (91 Fed. Reg. at 56,381); we ask the FAA to explain the extra height. For Trump Tower the FAA adopted a permanent restriction to 1,000 feet, Prohibited Area P-75 (91 Fed. Reg. 48255, July 31, 2026, effective October 29, 2026); the two sites differ, so the comparison supports asking for an explanation, not assuming one height must fit both. Before the restriction, 2,166 of the 2,181 tracked departures that crossed the restricted circle (99.3%), October 1–19, 2025, stayed above 1,000 feet (The 2,000-Foot Question). Restoring former routes would be a separate FAA decision; the rule does not set the flight paths. The study we ask for is a focused Environmental Assessment comparing realistic alternatives (the Coalition's comment, Objections IV, V and VII). Our comment of October 2, 2026 (Objections IX and X) asks the FAA to explain why the band between 1,000 and 2,000 feet must apply continuously, and proposes rule text requiring review "at least every two years and upon a material change in … presidential status." The FAA revoked earlier presidential restrictions after Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan left office (the proposal's own history, Section III). Public meeting: the Coalition's comment, Conclusion, joins the requests of local officials for "a public meeting in Palm Beach County." Ocean departures: Palm Beach County's Department of Airports asks whether the rule "or associated flight procedures can be configured to retain runway-heading departures over the ocean to the greatest extent practicable" (comment FAA-2026-10827-1196, pp. 3–4). The Coalition's comment is FAA-2026-10827-1315. ↩
  3. The Coalition's comment, filed October 2, 2026 in docket FAA-2026-10827 (63 pages, with exhibits), prepared by counsel, Steven M. Taber. It is supported by an aviation-procedure assessment reviewed by a former FAA airspace specialist (Exhibit A), an acoustics report by John C. Freytag, P.E. (Exhibit B), noise records from the Coalition's monitors (Exhibit D) and twelve resident declarations (Exhibit G). It proposes rule text for the FAA to evaluate: a 1,000-foot alternative to the 2,000-foot height, and a provision for periodic review. Each objection ends with a numbered request, I.1 through XI.1 (with two under VIII), twelve in all, and the comment asks the FAA to "respond separately to each numbered Request." ↩
  4. "Restore Safe and Livable Skies Over Palm Beach," with 2,176 signatures recorded by Change.org as of September 28, 2026, filed as comment FAA-2026-10827-0792. ↩
  5. Count from the submission log of the comment tool on this site (Speak4): 505 comments. Submissions received in docket FAA-2026-10827, as shown on regulations.gov on October 3, 2026: 1,316. Of those, 1,228 had been posted to the public file; the FAA reviews each comment before posting it, so that number will rise. Anyone may comment, so the count is not a tally of residents or of positions. The proposal: "Before finalizing this proposed rule, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments." Our petition, with 2,176 signatures recorded by Change.org as of September 28, 2026, is in the file as comment FAA-2026-10827-0792. ↩
  6. Twelve declarations, from residents of the Estate Section, Historic El Cid, Poinciana Park, Flamingo Park and Grandview Heights, filed as Exhibit G to the Coalition's comment of October 2, 2026 in docket FAA-2026-10827. The comment also includes our measured noise records, an acoustics report (Exhibit B) and an aviation-procedure assessment (Exhibit A). ↩
  7. The proposed rule (91 Fed. Reg. 56380): "Before finalizing this proposed rule, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA may change this proposed rule in light of the comments received." It calls the existing restriction, NOTAM FDC 5/2809, "an interim solution that would be replaced by the SFRA" it proposes (Section III), and describes it as "currently in effect in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida until October 20, 2026" (Section IV.A.1). Its main cost analysis assumes "the continuation of the existing SSI flight restriction" (Section IV.A.1); it also considers the restriction expiring (Section IV.A.6). Neither is an announced extension. ↩