Video of the February 4, 2017 Protest at Santa Monica Airport

The video produced for the latest Santa Monica protest rally is an outstanding example for how to conduct a peaceful and informative protest. Other aviation impact activists can learn from viewing this.

One point that comes through repeatedly within the rally is the deep concern the people have about health and aviation pollution. Incredibly, in the Consent Decree signed earlier that week, both FAA and the City were totally indifferent to these concerns; indeed, the only mention within the 63-page formal document is this paragraph, where FAA is pressing the City to formally abandon all environmental concerns.

Just a guess, but I suspect the four who voted to accept this Consent Decree (Pam O’Connor, Terry O’Day, Gleam Davis, and Ted Winterer) had not read this particular portion of the draft … and if they DID read it, they need to explain their ‘yes’ vote to the voters!

Here’s an embed of the video, followed by an expanded timeline, with a few quotes:

  • at the start of the video, Martin Rubin & Joan Winters (Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution) opened the rally.
  • 14:47Mike Bonin, Los Angeles City Council Member from District 11. A few quotes: “This has been a battle that has been going on for a very long time, and I will say that, for the past four years, I actually thought we were moving in a very good direction. I was thrilled and was glad to support the grassroots efforts of Santa Monica to push for the victory of LC and the defeat of D. And I was pleased to see the increasingly aggressive actions that the Santa Monica City Council was taking, as they went forward in trying to shut the airport down, in their battle against the FAA – a big, scary, monolithic organization, in that battle to try to get this airport shut down.”“My first reaction was, ‘wow, they’re going to shut this down, that’s good news’, and I was happy. And then I began to look into the details of the agreement. And my staff began to look into the details of the agreement. And, I began to hear from Marty, and others, who are experts and fluent in this. And while I was doing that I got a text from someone, a former elected official in Los Angeles, who said, ‘I just heard the news, Santa Monica Airport is shutting down; Bill Rosendahl is looking down smiling’. And, I texted back: ‘You know what? He sure as hell isn’t. He sure as hell isn’t’.”“Keeping this airport open for twelve more years is wrong,” followed by a series of injustices the airport is forcing onto local neighborhoods. Also, “If this runway is going to be shortened, it damned well better have a 1,000-ft buffer zone. It is unconscionable that the FAA, which is charged with protecting safety, has allowed a shorter than usual runway buffer zone in this area. It is absolutely unconscionable, and it puts people’s lives at risk. And I’m encouraging and calling on Santa Monica to do everything they can, to get rid of the damned leaded fuel sales at that airport. When I saw the LA Times story last week, I had hoped this was the end; it’s just another chapter.”
  • 20:40Santa Monica Mayor Ted Winterer was one of four who voted to accept the consent decree, and had been pre-scheduled to speak at the rally. He could have backed out, but bravely attended to explain his vote. Martin Rubin diplomatically introduced him, humorously asking the audience to hear him out and scream at him later.
  • 29:33 – Martin Rubin offered a civil rebuttal to Mayor Winterer’s comments, focusing on the need for engaged citizens and public process in an effective Democracy. “If the City thinks they’re fooling the people, well the FAA thinks they’re fooling the City. The FAA’s interest is in aviation – promoting aviation, economically mostly. They do not incorporate the views of the impacted communities. All around the country there are people that are very upset with things that have been going on with the FAA. This one friend of mine put it, ‘how can you tell when the FAA’s lying? Their lips are moving’.”
  • 40:10 – former Mayor Tony Vazquez was one of three Santa Monica City Council Members who voted against accepting FAA’s Consent Decree. Tony was not a scheduled speaker, but offered strong support for the work being done by Congressman Ted Lieu.
  • 43:54Sue Himmelrich, another of the three Santa Monica City Council Members (the third was former former Mayor Kevin McKeown) who voted against accepting FAA’s Consent Decree. Sue also was not a scheduled speaker, and offered strong support for Congressman Ted Lieu. She noted that both she and Ted Lieu are lawyers; that, she read the entire agreement prior to voting ‘no’, and she is sure Ted will read the full agreement, too, and will then make a just decision.
  • 47:02Laura Silagi, Venice Residents Against SMO, questioned the City’s ‘Fly Neighborly Program’. She explained how FAA dodges accountability and blames the program on the City. And, she explained the program’s impacts are a problem that needs to be solved now.
  • 52:10Alan Levenson, founder of ‘No Jets SMO’, read a review of the history of this airport, going all the way back to the Douglas airplane factory. For each change and each obstruction to progress, he noted: “The simple answer is money.”
  • 1:02:28 – Martin Rubin discussed facts and propaganda: “What the City put out is all propaganda.”
  • 1:02:56Susan Hartley, former Santa Monica Airport Commissioner: “Well, in 2007 I got you all to say ‘enough’, we thought it was enough, we had it then and now look at this now. All the time I was on the airport commission they kept saying, ‘2015: it’s going to be done’. Then, we saw 2015 come, and now they want us to believe it’s going to be done twelve years later? Forget it. Forget it, forget it. Under this so-called agreement, no … nothing about noise violations, nothing about pollution, nothing about … it’s going to get worse.” “I just don’t buy this twelve year thing. I don’t buy it. I would like to buy it. I think you need to think about recalling the people.”
  • 1:05:43 – Martin Rubin discussed Susan’s role in the history of activism against SMO impacts; he also discussed the evolution of the Airport Commission away from rubber-stamping airport staff projects, to instead become a representative for the People.
  • 1:07:44David Goddard, former Chair of Santa Monica Airport Commission, discussed his opinion on the apparent sweetheart deals, wherein City has illegally and fraudulently leased public property to Atlantic and other major airport tenants, far below market values. As Alan Levenson said in his earlier speech, “The simple answer is money.”
  • 1:12:41Bob Rigdon, an independent citizen, and 35-year airport neighbor, very effectively pointed out that, with the sudden vote to accept FAA’s Consent Decree, City Council has effectively thrown out decades worth of work.
  • 1:15:18 – after Martin Rubin suggested the airport could be renamed ‘Satan Monica Airport’, he introduced Mike Salazar, Ocean Park Association. Mike added his disappointment with the Consent Decree, and reviewed some airport history, including the 1981 vote to close the airport … which was forestalled by FAA when they imposed a 1984 Settlement Agreement. He discussed the need for the airport to close, including these quotes: “What we have to remember is, Santa Monica Airport is an outdated airport. It’s not the quaint, historic airport that anti-neighborhood folks cite, as this ‘wonderful, historic venue’.”“Not even shortening the runway will make this polluting dinosaur beneficial. When we close this airport, aviation will survive, and they’ll relocate, hopefully sooner than later.”“This outdated airport has no economic benefits when the costs are weighed.” He noted how non-aviation jobs vastly outnumber aviation jobs at the airport (which he finds economically comparable to a small strip mall), and in closing he mentioned toxic lead, ultrafine particles, and other airport health impacts. “Where is the FAA on health and safety, which is their mandate?”
  • 1:27:16 – Martin Rubin gave closing remarks, including: “So, it does take a large number of people, a lot of groups, a lot of different directions, to crack this very difficult nut – of aviation being able to do whatever it wants to do. There are problems all around the country. We are just the poster child for general aviation, and we have an important message to send out.”

.

City of Santa Monica FAA Reaches Settlement Agreement with FAA, Allows Shorter Runway and Eventual Closure – in 12 Years

The Santa Monica City Council announced in a Saturday press conference that they have agreed to a Consent Decree in which FAA will allow total closure of the airport [KSMO], but not until at least January 1, 2029.

Twelve years is a long time, and will mean a lot more health impacts due to jet air pollution. Some will see this as nothing but another unacceptable extension of FAA’s agreement with the City signed way back in January 1984, (1984 to 2029: FAA has dragged this out for 45-years!). That agreement was to allow City to assert full local control of their airport land, on July 1, 2015. FAA reneged on that promise, blocking City’s efforts and intent to close nearly two years ago. And, FAA abused their administrative authority to embrace – and even encourage – the use of Part 16 administrative complaints. FAA’s slow administrative processing of these complaints is used to perpetuate use of the airport while also impeding and delaying progress by the City.

The one element of the Consent Decree that offers residents some jet air pollution relief much sooner is this detail: the City will be allowed to reduce the length of the runway, to 3,500ft. While most of the present 4,973ft runway will likely be retained as pavement for safety overruns, the actual runway available for use will be reduced substantially, and the 30-passenger charter jet proposed by JetSuiteX (under a contract with an outfit called ‘Delux Public Charter’) will not be able to safely or legally operate.

Should the City have gotten better? Absolutely. Settlements are supposed to reflect a meeting in the middle, with proper consideration for both parties in a dispute. FAA continues to abuse their authority and play the bully in the playground, forcing communities like Santa Monica to expend thousands of hours of effort and even millions of taxpayer dollars fighting skirmishes enabled by FAA’s arrogant attitude. At the least, FAA should have granted City authority to exclude jets almost immediately, and absolutely once the runway is shortened. Why? Because the residential neighborhoods around Santa Monica are uniquely too close, and too impacted by jet pollution.

An actual signed copy has not yet been shared, but if the agreement has been signed, FAA has the power to repair this failure. Simply, FAA can declare that, due to health and safety concerns and unique local impacts, the Santa Monica runway is officially closed to jet arrival operations.

Here is FAA’s Press Release:

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.


See also:

UPDATE, 1/29/2017: — Reactions from activist groups question the City’s sincerity, and note the lack of transparency and trust. The Airport Protest Rally is still on for Saturday, February 4th, at 11AM. Here are more archived records:

JetSuiteX Blowing Off Airport Authorities, Still Planning Scheduled Flights Out of Santa Monica

We’re down to the last two weeks. On February 6th, a charter operator wants to add to the impacts at Santa Monica with the start of scheduled passenger service on 30-passenger jets, offering flights to San Jose, Carlsbad, and Las Vegas. It appears the airport has not been certified to handle this type of operation, that for example the emergency response personnel and equipment is not sufficient for a possible accident by the operator ‘Delux Public Charter’ under JetSuiteX. But, corporate hubris ignores safety, legality, and environmental compatibility.

The scrollable PDF below shows a recent article by Beige Luciano-Adams, in a local paper, the Argonaut. This reporter did a very good job asking questions and getting candid answers from both sides. On the other hand, attempts to get candor from FAA were rebuffed. Indeed, in this whole matter, the worst character is FAA. They are truly acting as a captured regulator serving only aviation, enabling JetSuiteX to compel the City to waste resources protecting the City and people from excessive and unacceptable risks.

A real aviation regulator would have put a stop on JetSuiteX in December, shortly after they started selling tickets online. A real aviation regulator also would have ordered JetSuiteX to cease selling of these tickets with discounts for Santa Monica residents, a practice that is discriminatory and thus appears to be illegal. A real aviation regulator would have worked hard to bring the operator and the airport authority together to quickly resolve all issues, trying earnestly to create air service, but rejecting the proposal if it failed safety standards and other requirements.

FAA has done nothing … which is part of the collaborated plan.

Readers are encouraged to study this article. Reader comments/analysis shared with aiREFORM may be added to this aiREFORM page, with or without attribution, at the request of the reader.

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

To read another local article, and to also see an analysis showing how poorly JetuiteX has done selling passenger seats to Santa Monicans (despite the discriminatory pricing), click here.

Genesis and the Story of the SERFR Arrival (according to FAA)

…But the Community continued to cry out in ever greater numbers.

And their complaints numbered in the thousands,

and then tens of thousands,

and then hundreds of thousands.

***

Crying out in a loud voice they said
Oh Lord, remove this plague of noise and pollution from above our heads.”
And the FAA said:
“For sooth. This has not happened before within our short memories. Why did the communities never before complain?”
And the Air Traffic Control angels replied saying:
Verily, the number of aircraft popping out of our bottom in ancient times were few. But now the number doth wax greatly.

A brilliant and humorous analysis of how FAA failed to serve the people impacted by NextGen arrival changes, feeding San Francisco [KSFO] from the south. The technical details presented in this are also impressive, and quite informative for anyone burdened with the health and quality-of-life costs imposed by FAA’s worsening NextGen implementation debacle.

Great work is being done by some very talented people at Sky Posse Los Altos.

Created by Ron Rohde, with Sky Posse Los Altos. Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

Aviation Impact Activism Documentary: ‘Destination East Boston’

This is an excellent documentary covering five decades worth of airport expansion impacts on Boston residents, even back into the 1960s. Somebody who knows this history more intimately, perhaps an East Boston resident, needs to write up a chronology about this history.

If someone takes on this project, aiREFORM will offer support, helping to create a webpage that includes maps, photos, links and more to share this story.

Destination: East Boston from Lucas La Battaglia on Vimeo.

The film appears to be connected to Airport Impact Relief, Inc., a nonprofit.

Timeline (subjects & appearances) in the film:

  • (1:24) – Mary Ellen Welch
  • (2:18) – Chris Marchi
  • (3:14) – Wood Island Park
  • (3:28) – Anna DeFronzo
  • (4:16) – Rich Gavegnano
  • (6:06) – Frederick Salvucci
  • (7:20) – Father Corrigan
  • (7:30) – SEP 1968, residents follow the example set in the 1960s civil rights marches. They realize that letters and attending airport meetings was not changing the airport growth ambitions; so, they began to protest more actively, blocking construction trucks.
  • (16:07) – Brian Gannon
  • (17:21) – Gail Miller
  • (20:16) – Wig Zamore
  • (21:28) – Sumner Tunnel & Callahan Tunnel
  • (23:13) – “It’s really frustrating … they really have a hold of our neighborhood, our community, in such a way that you can’t really challenge them….”
  • (23:35) – Father Sallese
  • (24:27) – Frank Sargent
  • (26:46) – Luz Heredia, her two children have asthma
  • (36:57) –  an example of the propaganda machine in East Boston
THANKS!Facebook post by Jana Chamoff Goldenberg.

Please Standby While this Airplane Passes Over

Humanity has achieved good and bad. Our buildings often suggest our best progress, though we have been known to destroy them in wars.

NightVision, by Luke Shepard

Watch this short video and notice how you are allowed to focus, even disappear, into the time-lapse images and the music. The video is not interrupted by needless noise and distraction. It’s technologically impressive, honoring humanity.

Now, here’s a question: would the glorious achievements presented herein be diminished, if we had to pause our tour of these achievements, while planes passed over, one after another after another?
Can aviation be brought back to balance, to serve people first and money last?

EPA’s Online Resources

20170108scp-epa-regions

(map and table, showing EPA’s ten administrative regions)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 “…for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.”

The effectiveness of EPA has been questioned by practically everyone; pro-commerce types swear EPA is too onerous, while pro-environment types insist EPA consistently falls short in protecting the environment.

Back in 1970, the year of the first ‘Earth Day’, our Congress was as constructively focused on environmental issues as they have ever been. Sadly, most Congress’s since have served commerce far ahead of people, passing laws, bending rules, and granting targeted exemptions that always further undermine EPA. This includes in the area of aviation impacts. Congress has consistently redistributed authority away from EPA and into FAA, on critical environmental matters including aviation noise and leaded aviation fuel. And, Congress has also consistently federalized authority; they’d rather strip local officials of their basic rights to run their local airports to serve the needs of their local community, and instead give that authority to faceless and unaccountable FAA bureaucrats.

A regulatory agency can be constrained by laws, but the most fundamental power is in information. Thus, even a defanged EPA can empower people, so that each individual can understand environmental impacts and effectively advocate for their family, to protect their environment. EPA can serve us – and they do, with work such as their ‘Citizen Science for Environmental Protection’ Program (selected content copied and archived here). But, and especially in the present political landscape, it is UP TO EACH OF US to do the work beyond the data: we have to take that data, formulate the message, and advocate the change.

So, for example, we can look at reports such as this one, showing diminished air quality and other impacts in the neighborhoods to the north of SeaTac Airport [KSEA]. We can also look at the December 2016 report done by the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology, ‘Environmental Protection Belongs to the Public – A Vision for Citizen Science at EPA’.

Where Do We Go Now?

If we take away one lesson from the politics of 2016, it should be this: a Democracy is doomed to fail, where the people are not actively engaged in the decision-making process. We cannot expect to achieve the ideals we want and need as a nation (or as a small, local community), if people do not participate. We cannot be distracted; we cannot be lazy; we must guard against the manipulation of voting data and other forms of election fraud; and, we must not allow the selective disenfranchisement that is happening due to ‘the new Jim Crow’ discriminatory laws. Similarly, we cannot expect to benefit from the sound application of science where many of our elected leaders are collaborating with lobbyists seeking to discredit science; climate change denialism is a good example of this failure.

With that in mind, there is a glimmer of hope for the new administration. The GOP has championed de-federalization and expanded LOCAL authority in all matters. Thus, it is conceivable that we may be surprised; Trump, Ryan, McConnell and others may shrewdly use aviation as an example, demonstrating how to reduce bureaucracy, save money and localize control while de-federalizing the authorities that FAA has increasingly abused.

FAA’s Refusal to Manage Airport Capacity

Satellite-based (aka, NextGen) technologies have been in use for decades, and at most airports they have enabled minimization of distance flown and fuel burned. In fact, at the very few airports where NextGen is failing, the problem is not the technologies: it is too many flights, and FAA’s lazy refusal to impose more restrictive airport flow rates.

If you spend any time studying today’s routes and flight profiles for U.S. commercial passenger flights (and it is REALLY easy to do, with FlightAware, FlightRadar24, and other websites that present FAA’s ATC data), you will see that all flights are already capable of and actually flying optimized routes: long, direct flights from origin airport to destination airport, with smooth and continuous climbouts and descents. But, for a small handful of airports, you will also see that ATC ends up creating long conga lines of low, slow and loud arrivals (the Long Island Arc of Doom is the classic example) … simply because there are too many flights arriving in too small a time window.

The root problem is the hub system, and FAA’s policy of enabling undisciplined hub scheduling by the dominant airline. FAA does this to maximize a theoretical number called ‘runway throughput’, and thus to help the airlines to maximize their profits. In simplest terms, a hub airline can tweak their profits upward a percentage point or two, if they can process say a dozen simultaneous arrivals, sorting the passengers quickly between gates, then send all those flights outbound at exactly the same moment.

Obviously, this is only theoretically possible. Because of limited runway capacity, each arrival and each departure needs roughly a one-minute window where the runway is theirs alone, so the scheduled ‘banks’ of a dozen ‘simultaneous arrivals’ and ‘simultaneous departures’ get spread out over two 12-20 minute windows. To safely handle the arrival banks, ATC has to level off the arrivals and extend the arrival pattern to long final legs, spacing the flights at roughly one-minute intervals; to process the departure banks, ATC issues immediate turns on departure (with terrible impacts in places like Phoenix), so that takeoff clearances can be issued in rapid succession.

The reality that FAA and Bill Shuster refuse to accept is this: runway capacity is limited, and we can pretend to be creating new technological solutions, but so long as there are only so many arrivals that a key hub airport can handle per hour, it is folly for FAA to let hub airlines schedule in excess. It only guarantees delays, which then cascade into other airports that otherwise would never see delays. Also, it is important to note that hourly flow rates do not address the problem. Delays happen every time, when just two arrivals aim to use one runway at the same minute. So, if FAA is to work with the airlines to design delay-free arrivals, the schedule needs to look at small time increments, even how many arrivals every 5-minutes. Fortunately, this finer data granularity is easily studied with todays digital processing capabilities.

The solution is obvious: we need Congress to change the laws, so as to disincentivize excessive hub scheduling; and, we need FAA to aggressively restrict airport flow rates at key delay-plagued hub airports, so that the conga lines never need to happen.

An Example: Seattle Arrivals

Here’s an example of what happens at an airport, when just one more flight creates enough traffic, to necessitate ATC stretching the arrival pattern. Seattle is a great example, because it is a major hub airport but [KSEA] is far from other major airports, thus flight patterns are not made more complicated by airport proximity issues. The dominant airline is Alaska (including its feeder, Horizon), but Delta began aggressive hub growth in 2012. The airport has triple-parallel north-south runways; a south flow is by far the dominant airport flow configuration. Whenever ATC has enough arrivals to reduce spacing to less than two minutes apart, the arrivals are extended downwind, turning base abeam Ballard (12nm), abeam Northgate Mall (14nm), abeam Edmonds (20nm), or even further north (see this graphic that shows distances on final from the runway approach ends).

The scrollable PDF below has sample arrivals on December 29th, with altitudes added to the screencaps, to illustrate level-offs and descent profiles. Five sample arrivals are included:

  • Horizon #2052 vs Horizon #2162 vs Horizon #2405: all are Dash-8s, from KPDX. Horizon #2052 has no traffic and is able to use the preferred noise abatement arrival route over Elliott Bay; the other two flights both have to extend to well north of Green Lake, including a long level-off at 4,000ft.
  • Alaska #449 vs Alaska #479: both are from KLAX. Alaska #449 has no traffic and is able to use the preferred noise abatement arrival route over Elliott Bay; Alaska #479 has to extend to well north of Green Lake, including a long level-off at 3,800ft, starting to the west of Alki Point.
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.


UPDATE, 01/17/2017 — further details and graphic added, re distances on final for KSEA south flow.

2017-01-06: ‘Accountability Check’

Below is a sample of a recent query to FAA, and a reply by an FAA official. This example relates to NextGen impacts in western Long Island, near the [KJFK] and [KLGA] airports. The original query was directed to Carmine Gallo, FAA’s Regional Administrator, but passed on to Rick Riley at the FAA HQ Noise Ombudsman Office.

You can judge for yourself … how well did the FAA official do in the reply?

  1. Did he or she answer any questions?
  2. Did he or she inform and educate?
  3. Did he or she clarify who is accountable, or did he or she identify who is responsible?
  4. Did he or she go a step further and identify the problem, then take action to actually FIX THE PROBLEM?
  5. …or, did he or she just return a mumbo-jumbo form letter response, with added platitudes and pro-aviation propaganda, while obscuring accountability and kicking the can down the road?

View copies at these links: Query, Reply. Here’s how the impacted homeowner judged Mr. Riley’s email reply:

We need our questions answered from the FAA &/or the PA and we need them now!! No more shifting blame. Someone needs to take responsibility!!

Answers Needed in Santa Monica

For safety and efficiency, we have design standards. Thus, we do not allow school playgrounds to overlap into highways, and we require freeway onramps to be constructed within specs such as gradient, lane curvature, pavement width and quality, signage and markings, etc.

Aviation is no different. In fact, design standards at airports are even more critical, due to higher speeds and larger fuel quantities. A case in point is the last major fatal accident at Santa Monica, on September 29, 2013.

ksmo-20130929-c525-crash-while-landing-rwy21-fig-22-from-video-study-distance-groundspeed-on-satview-ntsb

(yellow marks show aircraft position during the crash sequence; large numbers show the groundspeed decreasing from 83 knots to 51 knots at impact; smaller numbers show net distance from runway threshold)

Four died when a Cessna 525 jet, while landing on Runway 21, swerved to the right and collided with a hangar near the west end of the airport. 20130929pic.. C525 crash at KSMO, ramp & smoke plumeThe accident investigation by NTSB failed to establish exactly what happened, though analysis of personal electronic devices did indicate a large dog was allowed to ride unrestrained in the jet’s cabin (could a dog cause this much loss-of-control?). So, all we know is that a local businessman who would fly almost every week between his homes in Santa Monica, CA and Sun Valley, ID, lost control during an otherwise normal landing.

This brings us back to the concept of safety design standards. If you or I are driving down a rural arterial – say, a regular old 2-lane paved highway, and right at the 55mph speed limit – we might suddenly swerve if a tire blows. Design standards exist to ensure we have a ‘clear zone’ so that our ‘errant vehicle’ can be brought to a stop without hitting a fire hydrant, a railroad trestle, a restaurant, or other object that could increase the odds of fatalities and/or serious injuries. By design, we want our ‘errant vehicle’, be it a car or an airplane, to have room to slow down and stop, with nobody getting hurt. With more room, there would not have been four fatalities on 9/29/2013; it would have instead been ‘a close call’, and likely would have triggered a decision by some of the lucky survivors to fly less. The Cessna 525 accident at Santa Monica turned out badly because the jet collided with a hangar built relatively close to the runway. After the accident cleanup, satellite images indicate that the hangar (as well as connected hangar structures, damaged by the fire) was rebuilt. It is not clear whether these structures should have been rebuilt, just as it is not clear if they were allowed to be too close to the Santa Monica runway prior to the accident. But, looking at other U.S. airports, there is evidence that a serious safety design oversight is being perpetuated at Santa Monica.

For example, consider Cobb County, GA [KRYY]. This airport, north of Atlanta near Kennesaw, also has a single runway and a ‘C-II’ Airport Reference Code (the same ARC needed for E135’s to fly scheduled charter service, as JetSuiteX proposes in early 2017).

kryy-20161230scp-alp-w-portion-of-runway-marked-up-for-rofas

(portion of the KRYY Airport Layout Plan. Red ellipses added, to identify the 400ft ROFAs, parallel to the north and south of the runway centerline. Not that the current hangars are much further than 400ft distant from the runway.)

But, within the May 2016 KRYY Airport Layout Plan (ALP), it is declared that FAA requires an 800ft wide ‘Object Free Area’ (OFA), thus 400ft either side of the runway centerline. kryy-20161230scp-alp-portion-of-runway-data-table-declaring-ofa-distancesNote, too, that on the ALP, the airport authority declares they are conformant with the OFA distance requirement, a point that is reinforced by online satellite images.

kryy-20161230scp-satview-of-airport-vicinity

The satellite image further illustrates yet another stark contrast with Santa Monica: look at all the wide open space, not just to enable a safe conclusion to an errant flight, but also to minimize noise and pollutant impacts on airport neighbors (it appears there are no residences close to KRYY; just a rock quarry, office parks, and highways).

So, what’s going on here? Why is FAA allowing and funding airport expansion near Atlanta with safety design standards that appear to be routinely ignored in Santa Monica?

A Few Simple Questions

Here are four questions that both FAA and the City of Santa Monica need to answer, prior to allowing JetSuiteX to begin scheduled 30-passenger charter flights out of Santa Monica:

  1. prior to the accident, what was the distance between the south edge of the destroyed hangar and the runway centerline? Was this distance in compliance with FAA’s design standards for this particular runway?
  2. after the accident, did FAA and City confer as to the wisdom of rebuilding these hangars? Did this reconstruction require FAA to issue a specific exemption from runway setback requirements, so the new structures could continue to penetrate the runway safety areas and obstruction free areas?
  3. given the absence of functional Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) at Santa Monica, was either FAA or City proposed banning jets to mitigate risks? In particular, with roughly 270 residences standing inside the standard RPZ boundaries, where is there ANY FORM of ‘protection’ being achieved?
  4. regarding JetSuiteX, a recent news story includes this line: “We’ll begin operating whether we get permission or not,” Wilcox said. “We can use the existing facilities at the airport.” Has either FAA or the City confirmed this cowboy assertion? Has either FAA or City (hopefully BOTH!) taken immediate action to inform Mr. Wilcox of his errant views and the reality that safety dictates he will NOT operate until both the City and the FAA are assured his scheduled charter flights can meet basic safety standards?