.
Feedback

Blog | Stop Formation Flying Over our Homes

Dangerous formation flying occurs over West Los Angeles not one week after fatal crash.

It was the noise of the news helicopters that drew my attention to on Friday, August 10, 2012, 6:12 PM, while trying to return to Santa Monica Airport. Upon turning on the TV, I expected a traffic report. Instead I immediately saw the horrific image of a plane engulfed in flames in the West Los Angeles neighborhood not far from the Westside Pavilion.

I checked WebTrak today, August 18, to investigate if traffic into and out of SMO was halted after the August 10 crash. It did not surprise me that there were operations into and out of SMO shortly after the crash, including pattern flights and jet operations (see attachment). It was interesting to note the helicopters over the crash site. I saw five of them out my back window. WebTrak has trouble recognizing some helicopters. Instead of showing helicopter icons, they had a jet as well as small fixed wing aircraft performing close circles over the crash site area. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to WebTrak information, but at least it offers us some information to try and sort through. Although it does seem that the most egregious events are difficult if not impossible to locate.

For instance, in less than one weeks time after the tragic fatal crash, I received the following email message:

"Today at around 1pm, two single engine planes flew overhead in CLOSE formation only about 20 feet apart.  I can't believe that these idiots are allowed to play their air games over our homes inside the approach to SMO and LAX!!
One mistake and we have two planes crashing into homes!!"

Coincidentally, my wife and a neighbor witnessed the same group of two planes over our area.

When  I checked WebTrak I found nothing that came even close to representing this event.

I brought this issue of formation flying to the attention of SMO staff several times in the past. At first I was told by staff that planes were not allowed to fly in formation, SMO website states "Formation Flying - Formation flying within the Class D Airspace is highly discouraged unless necessary for an emergency." However, a representative from the FAA who was fielding questions at an Airport Commission meeting said that if the pilots request to approach SMO in formation they would be allowed to. Incredibly, he even said that he knew of no restriction on the number of aircraft that could fly information.

Formation flying is an unnecessary safety risk. It is unacceptable and it is disrespectful to the community that it endangers

We, the community, need to stand up and fight for our rights as it is evident that the City of Santa Monica and the FAA will remain complacent.   

Louis H. Ray August 19, 2012 at 11:12 am
Where do these so-called rights come from. Not the Constitution, not the law, they appear whole-grown from your mind. Your mind is the only place where you have these rights.
Glenn E Grab August 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Dear author of this blog.....I don't believe your story....it's made up....there was no report of this incident because it never happened....
John Bailey August 19, 2012 at 01:45 pm
If a homeowner is to have full enjoyment of his/her land, s/he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.
The rule is that the landowner owns not only as much of the space above the ground as s/he occupies but also as much thereof as s/he may use in connection with the land. However, this right is not fixed. It varies with the varying needs and is coextensive with them. Thus, a landowner’s property interest in the land extends to the airspace directly over the property, to the extent that the airspace can be used to benefit the underlying land. The fact that s/he does not occupy it in a physical sense, by the erection of buildings and the like, is not material. The common law stance on the relative rights of the landowner and the aviator to the use of air space above the surface of the earth is that an unprivileged intrusion in the space above the surface of the earth, at whatever height above the surface, is a trespass.
Richard Root August 19, 2012 at 02:26 pm
I agree with Martin. Planes take off in formation from Torrance Airport on a regular basis. I've seen as many as 6 planes flying only 700 feet above my home with wing-tips almost touching. As stated in Wikipedia, "In civil aviation, formation flying is performed at air shows and is also flown for recreation." The formation flying I've seen is recreational. But, it's like they are trying to give those of us on the ground a show...whether we want it or not. It's unsafe and the noise they cause is excessive. They should confine their formation flying to air shows or unpopulated areas.
Martin Rubin August 19, 2012 at 04:04 pm
Louis, you might want to refresh your knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the law before you put yourself and your narrow self-centered views out there for the public to see. "The right to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness" comes to mind. And please don't try to establish that you have the right to fly in formation as the happiness you pursue. Your freedom can not infringe on the rights of others.
sedona schnebly August 19, 2012 at 05:40 pm
Louis, We have the right to peaceful enjoyment of our property that we bought and pay property taxes on. Property rights existed long before the Constitution. In the law of torts, "harm" is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property. Air pollution is a private nuisance generated from one person's landed property onto another and is an invasion of the airspace appurtenant to land and, often, of the person of the landowner. Basic to libertarian theory of property rights is the concept of homesteading, in which the first occupier and user of a resource thereby makes it his property. Therefore, where a "polluter" has come first to the pollution and has preceded the landowner in emitting air pollution or excessive noise onto empty land, he has thereby homesteaded a pollution or excessive noise easement. Such an easement becomes his legitimate property right rather than that of the later, adjacent landowner. Air pollution, then, is not a tort but only the ineluctable right of the polluter if he is simply acting on a homestead easement. But where there is no easement and air pollution is evident to the senses, pollution is a tort per se because it interferes with the possession and use of another's air.
sedona schnebly August 19, 2012 at 05:43 pm
Only if such a boundary crossing commits provable harm — according to principles of strict causality and beyond a reasonable doubt — can it be considered a tort and subject to liability and injunction. There is a situation brewing called Jet Fuel Dumping whereby some small business class jets dump raw jet fuel over people's rooftops; this is illegal and deadly. Expect this form of criminal activity to come to light nationally in the near future, I suspect it happens whenever density altitude is high and runway length is short.
sedona schnebly August 19, 2012 at 05:44 pm
Furthermore in most cases the homes were built and lots were plotted before the airport was built and before jets were flying.
Charles August 19, 2012 at 05:53 pm
Where do these so-called right come from? Let's look at the U.S. Constitution ...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is clear that the FAA has the welfare and best interests of pilots and aviation independent of what might be better for the 'greater good." If the SMO website states, "Formation Flying - Formation flying within the Class D Airspace is highly discouraged unless necessary for an emergency," then it would be odd for the FAA to circumvent this notice. Yet not as odd as the FAA overturning Santa Monica's desire to restrict jets too large and fast for the length of their runways. When we look deeper into the rights issue we have to realize that resident's rights relate to being able to live in their home in safety and health. This surely would "insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Pilots or aviation rights are more complex because they can take their "rights" to another airspace better suited for jets that would have longer runways, neighborhoods not abutting the airport, and sufficient buffer space to reduce the intense levels of noise and air pollution.
Gene August 19, 2012 at 07:49 pm
Come visit the city of Park Ridge any day...where we have the " ORD Six Pack "
approved approach plan in progress that involves the 9 runways and the 10 runways. A total of six!! Wing to wing....
Catherine August 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Oh louis, the constitution is not the sole document for "rights". One doesn't have the right to drive under the influence; the right to disturb the peace et al. The greater society and the community dictate rights of decency, civility, respectfulness. We, the community have the right to safety. We will defend those rights.
BTW attacking another person's mind is the lowest form of discourse. Catherine
Glenn E Grab August 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I'm with you, Louis.....the arguments against the SM Airport have no legal basis....just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can get rid of it....the freedom these people do have is the freedom to move somewhere else...
Susan Griffin August 20, 2012 at 01:50 pm
Thanks for keeping track of what's going on over our heads, Martin. As for the "rights" discussion, some folks refuse to look out for their own safety. Too bad--they'll wish they had defended their right to safety from above the day a plane lands on top of them.
Glenn E Grab August 20, 2012 at 03:19 pm
jets and turbo-props are many times safer than piston engined planes....if you don't believe me, look it up on the net...
Glenn E Grab August 20, 2012 at 03:21 pm
John, loony arguments like yours don't help your cause...
Martin Rubin August 20, 2012 at 04:52 pm
Dear Glenn,
You don't want to believe for some reason. See the photo of six planes in formation near Torrance Airport and the associated Web Trak. You and Louis are helping the public understand the mentality of the opposition to addressing critical aviation concerns.
Martin Rubin August 20, 2012 at 05:00 pm
Dear Glenn,
One Gulf Stream IV is likely to cause much more death and destruction than a piston aircraft. Am I right? Do you draw any line on when a flight crosses the line on safety to the neighboring communities of airports?
Glenn E Grab August 20, 2012 at 05:08 pm
Martin, what I don't believe is your story about the two planes close-formation flying...btw....you're never going to win your fight...the liberal congressmen and women you elected all use the SM Airport so they can avoid having to associate with people like you and your friends on public airways...you'll get lip service and nothing else...
Martin Rubin August 20, 2012 at 06:40 pm
Glenn - Not that it matters what you believe;
FW: Two planes in formation again From: Stelios Makrides <Stelios.Makrides@SMGOV.NET>(Airport Operations Administrator) Mon 8/20/2012 12:15 PM Good afternoon Marty Sorry I missed your call. Staff has identified the operators of these two aircraft and outreached to them. Staff advised them of the impact of their operations to the surrounding community and educated them of the “Fly Neighborly Program”, which discourages formation flying within the Santa Monica Airport’s airspace (Class D). If you have any additional questions please free to call me back. Regards, Stelios Makrides Do you believe me now?
Glenn E Grab August 20, 2012 at 06:59 pm
no, because it's way less likely to crash....you're wrong, your logic is based on what you imagine might happen, not the facts...also, private and corp jets are flown by professional pilots and are better maintained than small piston powered planes...you're second question makes no sense at all...and is therefore unanswerable...
Frank Biele August 20, 2012 at 08:57 pm
We live on Manning Ave, nearest cross street is Olympic. I am a pilot. The other day OI heard what I thought were 2 planes, flying side by side. Sure enough-they were...IN A TRAFFIC PATTERN? To my knowledge this is not permitted per FAA regulation. At such a low altitude, and after a crash this should be considered criminal behavior (endangering residents).
Rodger Kellogg October 5, 2012 at 08:43 pm
Lets Make sure the Lease with the City Of Los Angeles, which includes a portion
of the Air Port is not signed Again, and that could well Eliminate the Corportate Air Craft and others. Rod Kellogg

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
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'
Fran Beeler June 7, 2013 at 07:28 am
They opened a new store upstairs at the corner of Sawtelle/Olympic Blvds. (Marshall's, Starbucks)
V.P.A. June 9, 2013 at 06:28 am
Was the question was about a STORE or a question about the Restaurant 'Michaels'?