Today’s FAA: Serving only Aviation Money by Perpetuating Environmental Impacts

Three current satellite views that illustrate how different nations balance aviation commerce with residential quality of life. The images also show how backwards the U.S. FAA has become, with the widening failures to protect people from aviation impacts.

The first image shows Austria’s largest airport, Vienna International Airport, which serves a metropolitan area with a population of 2.6 million. The airport is 11-miles southeast of the urban center, and surrounding by farmland. This airport was a recent news splash, when a federal court ruled against the addition of a third runway, on the grounds it would prevent Austria from achieving carbon-reduction goals associated with the Paris climate agreement.

The second image shows Portland International Airport [KPDX], in Oregon, which serves a metropolitan area quite comparable to Vienna (with an estimated 2.4 million residents). The airport is 6-miles northeast of the urban core; the land was formerly agricultural but has generally been industrialized and commercialized, often after the regional port authority uses federal funds to buy up adjacent properties.
The third image shows what may be the worst example of FAA obstructing local control, forcing noise and air pollution upon a densely developed residential community: Santa Monica, California [KSMO]. No farmland, and no other buffers to protect residents, with houses literally just past the runway ends. People have had fences and lawn furniture knocked down by the blast of private jets, and even charter jets carrying just one VIP passenger. The noise and the exposure to toxic lead and carbon soot is far beyond what is found at even much busier hub airports. FAA has allowed the airport to continue to operate despite effectively having no safety buffers, to protect both aircraft occupants and aircraft neighbors. The fiery crash that killed four in September 2013 is an example of how critical it is for jets to have ample clear space, to keep everyone safe.

Operationally, Portland and Vienna are quite similar. The Vienna airport website includes a news release noting there were 226K operations in CY-2016.FAA’s ATADS-OPSNET database notes that Portland International had 228K operations in CY-2016. One distinct difference, though, is that the Viennese traffic is stable, while the Portland traffic has steadily declined for two decades, and is now down 31% from peak year 1997.

Santa Monica is most famous as the airport where Harrison Ford hangars his toys; his playtime, even when it involves forced landings on golf courses and nearly hitting a commercial jet while failing to land on the Orange County runway, is more important than the health and happiness of thousands of residents. So, the same federal regulator that expends thousands of hours impeding local control and a safer SMO airport, would never even dream of clipping the wings of Mr. Ford.

This is a no-brainer: FAA needs to let local officials close KSMO, or at least disallow jets. The main impediment to cleaning this up is Michael Huerta’s FAA. If he cannot get his captured employees to do their jobs, he needs to leave.

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.”

.

Protest Today: Local Residents need Local Control at Santa Monica Airport

Image


The recently announced ‘consent decree’ between FAA and City officials, is a total capitulation to FAA, and thus to the aviation money interests that own FAA. This latest action shows FAA, Administrator Huerta, and four City elected officials have zero regard for the very real health impacts upon residents near this airport.

BTW, this group (Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution, CRAAP) does a phenomenal job on their protests. Check out the video archived for their protest ten years ago: [KSMO]: A Video Collection of Speeches at a Protest in April 2007

The ‘Consent Decree’: Shame on Four Santa Monica Officials for their Total Capitulation

Yesterday, the Consent Decree announced on Saturday morning was signed, and a copy was shared online. The surprise of the Saturday announcement was one thing, and the extent of excessive capitulation by the City was a second shock, but the actual language in the Consent Decree (copy here) is, well, Trumpian.

Granted, there is no way the new White House cabinet gives a rat’s ass about the health impacts around Santa Monica Airport; they are too busy playing ‘King of the Mountain’, testing their power limits, dismantling our environment and our civility, all in the name of greed and profits. Of course, so is the case at Santa Monica: the bulk of these impacts are by charter jets, thus serving the tiniest demographic, the ascendant oligarchy.

Here’s the assessment of the Consent Decree by NoJets.org:

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

And, here’s the assessment of the Consent Decree by attorney Jonathan Stein:

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:

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?

[KSMO]: A Video Collection of Speeches at a Protest in April 2007

The content and quality of presentation at this citizen protest is outstanding. The statements and the stories just scream out:

How can FAA and the Santa Monica Airport continue to do the damage being done, not just the noise but the serious health destruction, too?

This protest offers a great example for others, being impacted across the nation by an out-of-control FAA and aviation businesses. Perhaps viewing these will help you to become motivated to reclaim local control of your local airport … to serve the LOCAL COMMUNITY first, and to assure that the airport’s operations are properly balanced with the environment and local quality of life.

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded. Click on the links within the PDF to view each video portion, uploaded to YouTube.

[KSMO]: No Runway Protection Zones, in Stark Contrast with Other Airports

kuao-201205-rpz-rwy-17-on-satview-w-dimensions-showing-trees-later-removed

The green trapezoid delineates an RPZ at the north end of the Aurora Airport, near Portland, OR. This RPZ, similar in size to what is needed to accommodate charter jets at Santa Monica, measures 500ft by 1010ft by 1700ft long. As is the case nearly everywhere, all obstructions were removed from this RPZ: there are no structures within the trapezoid, and the lines of trees have all since been removed (not even stumps are allowed… they are considered too dangerous).

A Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is a trapezoidal space, positioned at the ends of all runways, designed to create a safety buffer for when aircraft fail to stay on the runway. Santa Monica has no meaningful RPZs. In fact, despite lots of searching, I have not been able to find any other U.S. airport with hundreds of homes standing inside the RPZ. The vast majority of U.S. airports have ZERO homes standing inside the RPZs.

This graphic illustrates where the Santa Monica RPZs would be, if FAA applied its safety standards there:

ksmo-20161223-rpzs-rwys-3-21-v2-labels-added

In contrast with the RPZ at KUAO, these safety areas at Santa Monica have hundreds of houses. (click on image for larger view)

Nationally, FAA has generally done a good job on RPZs; they have defined the dimensions, and they have firmly and consistently guided airport authorities to comply with these design standards that are needed to protect pilots, paying passengers and airport neighbors. FAA has thus secured safety control at essentially all airports, but NOT at Santa Monica. There, a close inspection of the RPZs shows approximately 270 homes exist in the Santa Monica RPZs that are frankly nonexistent. Here are larger images:ksmo-20161223-500x1000x1700l-rpz-sw-of-rwys-3-21 ksmo-20161223-500x1000x1700l-rpz-ne-of-rwys-3-21Nice homes, in a beautiful area with the finest weather, yet these people endure air pollution, noise pollution, and the constant fear of an off-airport crash. This makes no sense, and it does not have to be this way.

How Does Santa Monica Compare With Other Airports?

The PDF below presents a compilation of satellite views, comparing airport RPZs for Santa Monica with thirteen other airports in five western states (California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada). Each of the airports selected for comparison is noted for heavy use by air charters and private bizjets. Two especially notable conclusions from this analysis are:

  1. homes are virtually never allowed to stand within RPZs, as it is just too dangerous. So, why hasn’t FAA either bought out the homes in the Santa Monica RPZs or, far more pragmatically, simply shut down jet operations there?
  2. if FAA shut down jets at Santa Monica, the capacity to absorb them at larger and safer airports in nearby Van Nuys [KVNY] and Burbank [KBUR] is enormous. As is typical throughout the U.S., both of these airports were built to accommodate traffic levels that have since declined by half.
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

[KSMO]: Grossly Incompatible with the Community Around It

It has been a busy Fall at the Santa Monica Airport [KSMO], where FAA is flexing its administrative-legal muscles, intervening to delay city efforts to evict two private operators. The City wants to take over fuel sales and other airport services (known as ‘FBO services’), but the private FBOs do not want to accept that their leases are expired, nor do they want to give up lucrative profits. Just like FAA does not want to adhere to the agreement they struck with the city, in 1984, which meant the city could outright close the airport in July 2015.

In a recent email, Nelson Hernandez, the Senior Advisor to the Santa Monica City Manager, offered yet another update on the city’s progress. He noted that, “…on August 23, Council directed the City Manager to establish a city-owned FBO by December 31, or as soon as practicable….” He then added, there is ample precedent for airport authorities (in this case, the City of Santa Monica) setting up their own FBO services at an airport, instead of letting an out-of-state operator reap the hefty profits. He noted three airports: “…in the last two years, Fort Wayne, Greenville, and Chattanooga, created their own City FBO for similar financial reasons….” He was referring to airports in Fort Wayne, IN [KFWA], Greenville, NC [KPGV], and Knoxville, TN [KDKX].

Out of curiosity, I did some online research and confirmed that, yes, all three of these airports have city-operated FBOs. And, all three appear to be very healthy airports. Nelson’s list of three airports included one with an FAA control tower [KFWA] and two with no control tower [KPGV] and [KDKX]). Here’s the data on these three airports, with [KSMO] added for comparison:

    • KFWA: 70 based aircraft, a 12,000ft runway and an 8,000ft runway. FAA data shows the airport had 36,100 landings and takeoffs in 2015, down 71% from its peak year (124,000 ops in 2000). [3,400 acres, surrounded by farmland]
    • KPGV: 71 based aircraft, a 7,200ft runway, and a 5,000ft runway. Form 5010 shows 48,200 annual operations in the year ending 5/30/2016 (this is a rough estimate, as there is no tower). [872 acres, surrounded by forest, farmland and limited residential development]
    • KDKX: 167 based aircraft, and a single, 3,500ft runway. Form 5010 shows 68,400 annual operations in the year ending 4/30/2013 (this is a rough estimate, as there is no tower). [200 acres, surrounded by a river, a large quarry, and farmland]
    • KSMO: 249 based aircraft, and a single 5,000ft runway. FAA data shows the airport had 90,200 annual operations in 2015, down 62% from its peak year (234,800 ops in 1991). [215 acres, surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods; and, within the airport, substantial footage is presently subleased to non-aviation business uses, generating profits for the FBOs.]

I noticed something else, too, which was a bit startling. You’ll see it starkly presented in the three image-pairs below. When you look at how Santa Monica’s runway is shoe-horned into the neighborhoods, and when you compare it to the ‘airport normality’ of these other three, far less crowded airport locations, it just jumps out at you. And, when you look at the series of images showing how many houses were removed in recent years for a runway expansion at a very slow Greenville airport, you just have to wonder how in the world people can coexist with business jets so close to their Santa Monica homes. I mean, if FAA moves people out of their homes in Greenville, what is it about Santa Monica homeowners that makes them less at risk than North Carolinians? And given that there are so many Santa Monica homes, would it not make the most sense to simply close the airport??

Clearly, each of these three airports is far more compatibly located than is the Santa Monica Airport. In fact, looking at these three, I just have to say: if I was the new FAA Administrator, I’d be quick to ask my new highly-paid subordinates:

“Why are we NOT working with the city to expedite closing this airport? After all, it is grossly incompatible with the community (look at all those houses, and so close to the runway!), it is clearly a health hazard, and we have plenty of other LA Basin airports and longer, safer runways to serve the business jets and general aviation, all of which are far below their historic high traffic levels. So, when are we going to start serving everyone, not just our buddies who employ us after we retire?”

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kdkx-sat-views-w-rwy-lengths-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kpgv-sat-views-w-rwy-lengths-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kfwa-sat-views-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people


UPDATE, 12/6/2016: — per a request, click here for a PDF version of this entire Post.

KSMO: City Moving Forward on Evictions of Main FBOs – Atlantic Aviation & American Flyers

“…This morning the City filed unlawful detainer actions against Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers. As you know, both companies were given 30 day notices to vacate on September 15; both failed to vacate by the required date of October 15. Please see the attached press release for more detailed information….”

– Nelson Hernandez, Senior Advisor to the City Manager

Click here for further info (archived copy of the City’s news release)