.
Feedback

Score One for City of Santa Monica Over FAA!

It has been awhile since we heard about the 250 degree heading for IFR piston aircraft departures that caused such a stir. Who prevailed?

It has been awhile since we heard about the 250 degree heading for IFR piston aircraft departures that caused such a stir.

The 180 day test procedure took place from Dec. 10, 2009 until June 7, 2010.

The FAA wanted to make it permanent.

Santa Monica residents and Santa Monica City officials were vigorously against it.

Residents of Venice and Mar Vista were for it. I was for it.

Who prevailed? Has anybody, besides me, been wondering?

Having not been aware of any recent official statement from the City of Santa Monica, the FAA, or from Congressman Henry Waxman who was aligned with Santa Monica on this issue, on Tuesday, I called the FAA to inquire.

“The FAA is no longer pursuing the 250° heading”, I was told by Steve May, Special Programs Integrator, FAA Western-Pacific Region,

Great news for Santa Monica!

Terrible news for Venice, and Mar Vista!

Most people are unaware of the following facts that I believe are essential to understanding the full environmental impacts related to the 250 degree turn, so let me present a little review:

In 1990 SMO's IFR departure procedure for all IFR aircraft (including jet aircraft) was the 250 degree turn "immediately after departure." This route went over Santa Monica toward the pier. There was no need to receive clearance from the LAX tower, so hold times were minimal. By the way, in 1990 there were 1,025 total annual jet operations. That’s 512 jet takeoffs or less than two per day.

Then, a change took place and all IFR aircraft were advised to discontinue the 250 radial turn, and were instead routed straight out over Venice which included implementing a departure delay to coordinate with LAX air traffic controllers. This was a major change in the amount of air pollution generated into the Los Angeles neighborhoods to the east because of greatly increased idle/hold times and aircraft backed up waiting for LAX tower clearance.  

The change had no environmental review and there was no public notice and no community involvement.

Why the change in 1990? I have been asking the City of Santa Monica as well as the FAA that question for some time, and all I get are blank stares. Not that hard of a question. Let me present some of the facts at hand.

Below are two versions for why the change occurred for your consideration.

From the City of Santa Monica’s Airport website at smgov.net/Departments/Airport/Airport_History.aspx:

In 1990 the FAA proposed an amendment to SMO's IFR departure procedures changing the 250 degree turn "immediately after departure" to "at reaching the LAX 310 degree radial." This change was instituted as a result of the Cerritos air crash.

From information supplied by Plaintiff’s Attorney (Case # SC 055183 Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, tried 2001):

“August 20, 2001 – Testimony by Jeff Mathieu, Regarding “250 Degree Radial Turn Procedure” Jeff Mathieu, former Santa Monica Airport Director, was asked about the agenda item from a meeting of the 1991 'L.A. Air Traffic Users Forum.' Plaintiff’s Attorney recalls that the first item on the Users Forum’s agenda was a request from, Tim Walsh, who was then the Santa Monica Airport Director, to discontinue the 250 radial turn and instead implement a departure delay in coordination with LAX air traffic controllers. 

From a FAA July, 2011 presentation directed to the Venice Neighborhood Council, titled "Intended Goals of the Test Procedure:"

  1. To increase safety and ensure aircraft were procedurally separated
  2. To provide the necessary lateral separation from SMO IFR piston departures and LAX north airfield departures
  3. Evaluate the environmental impact including aircraft emissions

 

Now, logic has me believing that if the FAA is reintroducing the 250 Degree Radial Turn as a safety enhancement procedure, than the SMO version stating the change was instituted by the FAA as a result of the Cerritos air crash is a contradiction.

So why did the FAA yield to the great City of Santa Monica? Santa Monica officials traveled twice last year to Washington D.C. to meet with the FAA. Could it be that they came to a backroom agreement? Maybe the FAA agreed not to fly over Santa Monica if Santa Monica dropped the idea of closing the airport come 2015.  Stay tuned.

I know one thing for sure. Santa Monica Airport may look good from the observation deck, but it is a public health mess.

natalie mcadams January 11, 2012 at 01:48 pm
Robert you have it wrong. The airport does not bring in revenue and if you question this fact go to any of the data submitted by the City of Santa Monica on their recent studies about the future of Santa Monica. So you should check your facts.
Jacquie January 11, 2012 at 01:50 pm
I don't think this is an issue that should be divisive for the neighboring communities. The overall issue is the FAA imposition here. Thank you Martin Rubin for generously spending so much of your time being informed on the issues. You are a regular at all of these meetings.
sm mama January 11, 2012 at 02:18 pm
Beautifully stated, Marcy! hear, hear!
Edward January 11, 2012 at 02:42 pm
The jet exhaust fumes coming from an idling jet at SMO were so strong yesterday afternoon around 5 pm that I had to abandon my outdoor project to go inside. I live nearly a mile southeast of SMO and have had this experience far too frequently. Endlessly idling jets, with screaming engines sounding like they're about to implode create vast quantities of toxic fumes as well as the worst noise problems. The toxic, lead-laden soot from the prop planes which collects on my freshly-painted white window trim doesn't bother me nearly as much as the jets' noxious fumes.
K Klarin January 11, 2012 at 03:04 pm
I agree with Marcy, this should not be a Venice vs SM issue, the noise, pollution, and threats from the aircraft hurts ALL of us. The airport should be closed in 2015 and that is more likely to happen if we stay united. Close the airport and let's turn it into an asset that we can ALL (Venice and SM) use, not just a small number of rich people and pilots.
VeniceFather January 11, 2012 at 03:24 pm
Given that the FAA results demonstrated an improvement in idling times from directing some flights over SM, this policy change by the FAA likely reflects Congressman Waxman's power relative to the freshman Janice Hahn (as well as her predecessor), as well as a devaluing of human life in Venice relative to Santa Monica by the FAA, literally. As for those SM residents who keep advocating that SM and Venice band together, I'm sure the disenfranchised Venice residents would be happy to do so if Santa Monica stopped dumping its problems on Venice. SM residents, until you make a gesture of good faith and advocate for absorbing a greater share of the burden of YOUR airport, that position will continue to be disingenuous.
James Sloat January 11, 2012 at 04:04 pm
To all of the idiots that are upset at the airport, I don't like you driving around West LA or Santa Monica in your automobiles or the jobs you may have so I will be coming by with a bulldozer to push your communist household into a hole. That is essentially what all of you with your communist idealism are saying. You were not forced to sign your lease, rental or mortgage contracts. If you truly believe that you can force people to leave their businesses and jobs then you should probably move to a country that supports that communist idealism.
VeniceFather January 11, 2012 at 04:27 pm
This is a hilarious comment since we're talking about government policies favoring one group over another. Are you one of those "keep your government hands off of my Medicare types"? Anyway of course no one forced anyone to enter into those contracts, however many people moved here before major changes at the airport made things much worse, and for people who moved here afterwards it's fully in accord with free-market democratic ideals to advocate for improvement. The airport sits on public land, and I'm sure if it were up the free market it would immediately be razed and developed.
Joan January 11, 2012 at 05:47 pm
Santa Monica/Ocean Park residents are definitely NOT getting it. You may believe your city leaders and city manager all you want, but you are forgetting one thing. Your airport is polluting many thousands of residents outside of "the city". The WLA community of North Westdale , just east of the airport, contains well over 1,000 residents, heavily impacted by toxic jet emissions, and under the flight path for arrivals. Noise is incredible all day. There is no real night time curfew, on arrivals. Jets have landed at all hours of the night. Santa Monica and their residents want to have it all their way. Santa Monica based groups want us who do not live in their community to jump on board with their plans for the airport that we do not necessarily agree with. When they say that they are working with all the communities, they really mean all of the Santa Monica communities. We residents of Venice, WLA, including Mar Vista, Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills, are not invited to participate in your plans.
Joan January 11, 2012 at 05:48 pm
From my many years of observations, Santa Monica is a cloistered community concerned ONLY with keeping planes out of their neighborhoods. Let's get to the heart of the blog--it really appears that Santa Monica and the FAA have made some behind-closed -doors deals, possibly SM agreeing not to close the airport in 2015 to appease the FAA, and in turn, SM gets favored treatment. This is getting to be apparent. Where is the city of Santa Monica's press release, or ANY information in the local papers that the 250 is off the table? Why was this not publicized? There is a huge amount of arrogance from a number of Santa Monica residents who apparently feel they are privileged and shouldn't receive any impacts from their own airport. No one wishes this crap on anyone!. When are you going to be concerned about anyone OUTSIDE of Santa Monica?
Susan Griffin January 11, 2012 at 06:55 pm
Please read Marty's comments again. The present heading causes delays for the jets taking off, during which time they generate much more jet fumes to be wafted back over the LA neighborhood to their east. The turn over Santa Monica might create more noise for SM residents, but it would reduce overall jet air pollution, by shortening the waiting time for take-off.
Non Pilot Bob January 11, 2012 at 07:50 pm
Everyone within a mile or two of the airport are affected in one way or another. Do the individuals above who are anti airport realize that if they all came together on one front could actually acheive something? I read a lot of assumptions above and we all know what it means to "ASSUME" I live in Santa Monica and am one of many who do not necessarily approve of the behind doors actions that are obviously be taken.
The city of Santa Monica continues to count on the fratures between the community groups. As long as they can maintain the level of tension, then the obvious will never happen. And the obvious to me anyways is EVERYONE coming together for the same purpose CLOSING THE AIRPORT.. James, what the heck does communisom have to do with any of this.
Venice Republician January 13, 2012 at 02:03 pm
The airport is never going to be closed. Now your going to see more jet take off's over your homes. All you arm chair liberal windbags in Venice are a bunch of do nothing's. Keep huffin that jet fuel and blogging nonsense. A normal person would move rather than live in a toxic dump.
Robert Marley January 14, 2012 at 02:47 pm
Sorry Natalie, You are delusional and wrong. The airport does bring in revenue. Do you think all the leasees, charter services, restaurants, flight schools and other businesses up there don't pay rent, business taxes and other fees to the city? Please, you're embarrassing yourself. There's no point in even debating this or the airport issue if people like Natalie McAdams make up things on the fly. Next thing, McAadams will be telling us that pigs fly.
Robert Marley January 14, 2012 at 03:45 pm
Had McAdams and Marcy Winograd done their homework they would know in 2010/2011, the Santa Monica Airport generated $4,260,268 in revenues. This was dreived from hanger and shop rentals. tie down fees, fuel sales, landing fees, land leases and other sources acoording to the city budget (available online) , It's a figure that's been fairly constant over the last five years. So saying that the airport does not bring in revenue is flat out wrong. I'd like to know whether Winograd and McAdams failed to check out the facts before posting their inane comments on airport revenues on the Patch, deliberately lied or just made everything up fvor the heck of it?
In any case they now have zero credibility. How many of their other comments are just B*****T, lies or from ignorance?.
Martin Rubin January 14, 2012 at 05:42 pm
Robert Marley and others,
What we all need to look at to clarify the economics surrounding the operation of Santa Monica Airport is an open, honest, straightforward, thorough independent economic study. As it stands, there are seemingly contradictions in statements that have been made for many years by Santa Monica City officials. It is very easy for people to be confused. I intend on writing more about this topic on my next blog.
natalie mcadams January 15, 2012 at 01:14 pm
To Robert Marley, the b*****t as you so eloquently put it comes from the Santa Monica officials. I sat in an OPA meeting and listened to the Santa Monica commissioners lament the fact that they have to subsidize the airport. So what is true? What you read on the website? What they say out loud to the community? What Rand found in their studies? Like so much about the Santa Monica Airport that s the issue? The City of Santa Monica, as distinguished from ite residents, speaks from both sides of it's mouth and it's hard to believe anything they say, which was Marty's point to begin with. They are in the midst of a visioning process about the airport but it is likely that they have already struck a deal to keep the airport open in exchange for the perpetuity of the 250 header. The is no other logical explanation for why the FAA dropped that. Planes flying that header have shorter or no holding patterns resulting in less toxic fumes. Planes flying that header don't interfere with the LAX traffic pattern. What do planes flying that header do? They fly over Santa Monica homes instead of LA, Mar Vista and Venice homes. As for your nasty comments, the denigrate what you have to say and are just as ugly as the politics surrounding this issue. I would love to work with Santa Monica residents to protect my children. So Santa Monica read the CRAAP website. Learn about the leaded fuel in prop planes and the ultra fine particles in jet fuel and tell your legislators no more.
natalie mcadams January 15, 2012 at 02:16 pm
And further for the record Robert Marley, all those other businesses can stay such as Barker Hangar and the restaurants and the school. The revenue they generate is not dependent on the airport. And for that matter, although I vastly prefer the airport to close, if they just get rid of the jets, the leaded fuel and the flight schools, the airport can stay. What is your interest in the airport? Are you a pilot? Or just uneducated about the toxicity? Or do you just not care about anyone who lives around the airport?
EdMcQ January 15, 2012 at 04:39 pm
Marty is exactly right in his analysis of the "250 degree heading" issue. The fact is that this change would have already been implemented except for the organized opposition of Santa Monica residents, and the intervention of Henry Waxman on their behalf on the federal level. The FAA supported implementation, as did residents of surrounding Los Angeles communities; LA Councilman Bill Rosendahl called for its adoption as well. But Santa Monica's Washington D.C. lobbyists, arm-in-arm with Henry Waxman (previously best known locally for having stopped the Red Line subway to Santa Monica in the 80s), have apparently been very successful in stopping this change as well.
Santa Monica airport activists purport to be acting on behalf of ALL airport neighbors, but I'll believe that when I see them supporting even the slightest change (such as the 250 degree heading) that will send any airport traffic over Santa Monica, thus lessening, however slightly, the burden being borne by surrounding Los Angeles neighborhoods.
Ever The Optimist January 15, 2012 at 05:09 pm
So the clearest, most logical solution - the one that everyone came to back in the 80's - is to severely limit (or ban) on jet planes. It's astonishing to see the expansion of jet operations over the last two decades (from ~1,200 to ~16,000!).
This takes care of noise, pollution, and safety (no buffer zone!) - But they can't, because the facility sits on public land and the agreement with the FAA provides for 'non-discrimination'. Essentially the city of SM has (and apparently continues to) entered into several contactual obligations with the FAA that limit both parties options for regulation: "Nonetheless, the City has requested numerous times that the FAA impose stricter rules and regulations on SMO, only to be met by inaction from the FAA, which states that their sole charge is “to direct aircraft flight patterns and ensure safe and efficient use of navigable space.”" Besides several public areas (soccer field, dog park) there are also many businesses associated directly with the airport, including restaurants, Jet operations and FBOs - so closing isn't an option. It just isn't going to happen. There really is too much money involved. As a Venice/Mar Vista local, Libertarian (who makes <70K a year), PrivatePilot in training, I think: the Airport is great, SM residents are snooty, jets are loud and smelly, the city of SM has gotten itself tangled with a Federal agency, and Typhoon makes great Pad Thai. You're welcome for the oversimplification...
Robert Marley January 15, 2012 at 05:38 pm
Natalie Mcadams made a statement, "The airport does not bring in revenue and if you question this fact go to any of the data submitted by the City of Santa Monica..." I did and mcadams was flat out wrong. She then challenged my statement that the airport does bring in revenue again, And she was wrong again..
The facts are that Mcadams was off by more than $4.2-million. Excuses aren't going to work. Now you're saying that the city juggles figures and some city bureacrat said this and others, like the airport commissioners who are equally uninformed as you are, said that, The truth is in the budget and its easily accessible online. The airport brings in revenue!!!!!!! It's nice of you to say the Barker Hanger, restaurants and others can stay. I'm sure they'll be happy that they have your permission to run their businesses. In regards to me... Your paranoia is showing. Although its none of your business, I have no interest or connection to the airport. I think a lot of work needs to be done on noise and pollution and that it does affect airport neighbors and it shouldn't. The assertions that I "don't care" or "I'm uneducated about the toxicity" is like your other statements: irresponsible, argumentative and without basis or fact. Maybe you have my confused me with James Sloat (Venice Republican). It doesn't help your cause to misrepresent facts, jump to conclusions or fabricate absurd assertions.
Trudi Sturgeon January 15, 2012 at 08:30 pm
To those who believe that Santa Monica shares equally in the effects of the airport, please refer to the "Fly Neighborly" recommendations for prop planes. 1) All northerly flying planes are to take off and immediately veer to the left to fly over Los Angeles Penmar Park and continue to the ocean before turning right, thus avoiding Santa Monica completely. 2) All other takeoffs are directed to make a sharp left turn over the residential neighborhood of Venice and Mar Vista, thus avoiding Santa Monica completely. If you would like visual proof please refer to webtrak to watch planes in real time. For those who condemn the homeowners of Venice for buying houses in this area, please note the airport tower and several pilots have confirmed that the path was changed from the busy streets of Lincoln and Venice, advising pilots to turn left closer to the SM airport for safety reasons. I can only guess that a larger distance from LAX is the reason, avoiding flying over Santa Monica in order to increase that distance. And if anyone has more info regarding this change, please comment. The neighboring communities have a right to be concerned and should speak out regarding this blatant inequity.
Marcy Winograd January 19, 2012 at 03:01 am
As Natalie pointed out, the Ocean Park Association (OPA), of which I am a board member, hosted an evening with city representatives (city manager's office, a council person, airport commissioner) to talk about the airport. According to the city reps who spoke that night, the city of Santa Monica IS subsidizing the airport because the airport does not generate enough income to cover expenses. Previously, the city of Santa Monica had received airport subsidy money from the federal government, but -- according to the city reps -- the city stopped taking those subsidies when residents wanted to break free of the federal hold over the land. I, too, was disappointed that the studies did not look more critically at the economic burden of the airport; the offices there, the restaurant, the museum generate jobs and tax income that could continue regardless of whether the airport remains open. To lump those jobs/tax base in with "airport economic contributions" just doesn't fly. (forgive the pun). I would also like to see the city call for a study of alternative uses for the airport land, which was initially intended for park land. I will be participating in the city's visioning groups and will strongly advocate for closing the airport in 2015 when the federal lease expires. To those who say the airport will never close, I say look at history: the end of slavery, women's suffrage, the fall of the Soviet Union. We are only limited by our political will and imagination. Onward!
Ron January 19, 2012 at 03:40 pm
Facts? End of slavery, woman's suffrage and the fall of the Soviet Union?
Surely you jest. You're participating in visioning groups and strongly advocate for the closing of the airport in 2015? I guess objectivity is not a strong suit, here. How disappointed will you be if the Feds don't give up airport leases in 2015? .
natalie mcadams January 19, 2012 at 05:51 pm
When you have nothing left to say hurl insults right Ron?
Robert Marley January 19, 2012 at 06:01 pm
Insults are in the eye of the beholder. Between you and Winograd we get a lot of nonsense, and in your case, wrong information and bogus facts. If these are insults, so be it.
natalie mcadams January 19, 2012 at 08:16 pm
While that may be true, the facts speak for themselves. Marty Rubin is going to write another blog on this and illuminate the true story so that everyone can judge for themselves who is telling the truth. Stay tuned.
Martin Rubin January 23, 2012 at 11:11 pm
My new blog is now posted.
Santa Monica Airport Economics 101 http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/santa-monica-airport-economics-101
Ay Dub February 29, 2012 at 03:23 pm
Surely by now you've read Martin Rubin's piece "Santa Monica Airport Economics 101"...
So what do you have to say for yourself now, numb-nuts?
NIMBY Watch March 25, 2012 at 01:44 pm
FOLLOW THE $$$- Real estate developers want the airport property to build another Playa Vista-type behemoth. They have been trying to buy the land for years--unsuccessfully. So they created a Plan B: circulated flyers and petitions and sent "concerned citizens" into the neighborhoods to stir up controversy. Very clever and effective! The developers remain in the shadows, while emotional residents do the dirty work for them. It's sad to witness this manipulation, but Big Business has learned to influence public opinion to serve its own selfish goals.
If you don't believe that developers are behind this push to close the airport, go to City Hall and do a little research in the permits department.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Santa Monica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
stewart resmer June 18, 2013 at 02:35 pm
Vice President Joe Biden tried Tuesday to rally Congress to act on gun control legislation, sayingRead More that "the country has changed and [politicians] will pay a political price for not getting engaged and dealing with gun safety." "As proud as the president and I am of the progress we have made, we need Congress to act," Biden said in a speech delivered at the White House. "The American people are demanding it. We need to make sure that the voices of the ones we lost are the loudest ones we here in this fight." Specifically, Biden was referring to politicians like Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who saw her approval rating plummet after she voted against legislation that would expand background checks. Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) and Sen. Mark Begich's (D-AK) ratings also took a nosedive. On the otherside, Democrats in red states, like Sens. Mary Landrieu (LA) and Kay Hagan (NC), got a slight boost in their approval ratings after they voted in favor of the gun control legislation. The vice president also released a set of federal guidelines Tuesday for developing high quality emergency operations for schools, higher education institutions and places of worship. "We made sure the guide reflects all the lessons we've learned over the years," he said.
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Read it! Agree! Let's go!!!
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Also, check out the Santa Monica Mirror coverage of the Chamber of Commerce Installation, where itRead More was held and who was present!!!
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Talk about "sleeping with the enemy".....just sayin'