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:"
- To increase safety and ensure aircraft were procedurally separated
- To provide the necessary lateral separation from SMO IFR piston departures and LAX north airfield departures
- 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.
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.
In any case they now have zero credibility. How many of their other comments are just B*****T, lies or from ignorance?.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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? .
Santa Monica Airport Economics 101 http://santamonica.patch.com/blog_posts/santa-monica-airport-economics-101
So what do you have to say for yourself now, numb-nuts?
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.