Council
Grounds FAA Plan for Santa Monica
Airport |
By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
August 30 -- Feathers flew
at City Hall Tuesday night after a
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
official criticized City staff for
overly protecting residents near Santa
Monica Airport and Council members
rejected the FAA’s runway safety
plan as “problematic”
and “inadequate.”
City officials and residents from Santa Monica,
West Los Angeles and Mar Vista have been arguing
for seven years that the airport was not designed
for use by newer and faster jet airplanes, which
many fear may overshoot the 4,973-foot runway.
“The City’s staff report says the
City’s goal is to maximize safety, but not
to preserve the utility of the airport,”
said Kirk Shaffer, the FAA’s associate administrator
for airports.
“In the real world, in the world of regulating
a nationwide system of airports, of which Santa
Monica Airport is an important part, we get the
best safety outcome we can consistent with the
airport serving its purpose in that system.”
Shaffer said Santa Monica Airport is among the
top 15 general aviation airports in the nation
when it comes to the number of aircraft takeoffs
and landings and is in a vital Southern California
venue for private aircraft use by businesses and
executives.
Council members quickly noted the City does not
agree.
“I understand that’s your view and
the FAA’s view, but I hope you understand
that this is absolutely not our view,” Council
member Bobby Shriver said in defense of City staff.
“In our world, we are extremely sensitive
to the safety of the people who live around the
airport,” Shriver said. “Our number
one goal is to make sure the residents we represent
and our friends on the West Los Angeles and Mar
Vista side are as safe as they can be.”
Santa Monica Airport was designated in 1984 as
a B-II airport for aircraft in A and B categories
with approach speeds of less than 121 knots.
City officials are dismayed that the FAA has
permitted D-II aircraft to use the airport without
any public process or safety review.
They are also not pleased that the FAA is using
a Gulfstream IV for planning purposes in its current
runway safety proposal, an aircraft that was never
studied in the prevailing 1983 Airport Layout
Plan.
“Our biggest issue right now with this
proposal, the reason we strongly say it doesn’t
meet our needs, is because it does not address
the C and D aircraft the way the FAA’s own
design standards address them,” said Robert
Trimborn, Santa Monica Airport’s acting
director.
The FAA has proposed the construction of two
155-foot runway safety areas that include 130-foot
Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) beds
and a 25-foot lead-in to the bed at each end of
the runway.
An EMAS bed contains crushable concrete designed
to absorb aircraft energy and capture an airplane’s
landing gear in an effort to bring a wayward aircraft
to a halt within the boundaries of an airport.
Trimborn said C and D category aircraft, many
of which use Santa Monica Airport, would need
a runway safety area of 1,000 feet of flat pavement
minus some footage for an EMAS bed if such an
aircraft were to be safely halted inside an airport.
City staff said a 155-foot runway safety area
does not meet the FAA’s 300-foot minimum
safety area requirement for B-II airports, nor
does it meet the 1,000-foot requirement for D-II
airports.
The proposed EMAS installation, City staff said,
would only stop aircraft 12,500 pounds or heavier
and provide no “safety enhancement”
for lighter aircraft, which make up 85 percent
of the aircraft currently using the airport.
Shaffer acknowledges “emotions have been
running high” among nearby residents, but
adds that runway safety plans cannot be used as
a forum to find solutions to the jet engine noise
and emissions those residents have long complained
about in addition to runway safety.
“There is no safety basis to limit jets
at this airport because, statistically, jet aircraft
have a better safety record than piston engine
aircraft,” Shaffer said.
“The airport, as it sits today, may not
meet every design standard that we use to fund
new construction, although it does meet most of
them. But that, in and of itself, does not limit
the classes of aircraft that can use the airfield
at Santa Monica Airport or any other airport in
our national system.”
Runway safety areas are not required at general
aviation airports, only at commercial airports
that handle a given number of passengers and scheduled
flights, Shaffer said, adding that major FAA regulations
are established by federal legislation.
Council members directed staff to return, possibly
on September 25, with strategies to implement
their recommendations for runway safety measures
– recommendations that reject the FAA’s
plan – and with federal legislative options.
Congressman Henry Waxman, who represents Santa
Monica and other Westside communities in the U.S.
House of Representatives, wrote a letter to the
Santa Monica City Council expressing his “deep
disappointment” with the FAA’s plan
and decision not to reevaluate that plan in consideration
of neighboring residents’ fears.
“My greatest concern is that the FAA’s
decision-making process evaluated only the risks
and needs of pilots and passengers without considering
the important role of runway safety areas in protecting
pedestrians and homes on the ground,” Waxman
said.
“In doing so, the FAA failed to strike
an appropriate balance between the convenience
of private flights and the safety of the general
public.”
|
