Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic

On Apr 2, 9:47*pm, Stella Starr wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

If you go look at the local paper (it takes a while to load, as they're
back in the 20th century and put a PDF of the thing on their website)
you'll note a couple interesting things, including a number of runway
overrun accidents in recent years. *And after the jump (when the story's
continued to page 17) the aerial photo shows the city snuggled right up
* around the landing strip, a clear example of bad metro development.

Its not surprising. The instrument approach into SMO is one of the
most challenging I've ever flow. It puts you about 1,000 feet AGL at
less than a mile from the numbers. I have a hard time landing in the
Mooney w/o running over. I'm sure the jet jocks that fly in there
regularly must be cheating the approach. I've broken out more than
once only to look straight down at the numbers. Technically its listed
as a circle approach (even though its aligned with the runway) but
I've never seen anyone do the circle, certainly not any jets.

-robert

Well when you break out why not circle left or right? It would be a good
opportunity to shed some altitude.

John

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:47 pm, Stella Starr wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


If you go look at the local paper (it takes a while to load, as they're
back in the 20th century and put a PDF of the thing on their website)
you'll note a couple interesting things, including a number of runway
overrun accidents in recent years. And after the jump (when the story's
continued to page 17) the aerial photo shows the city snuggled right up
around the landing strip, a clear example of bad metro development.


Its not surprising. The instrument approach into SMO is one of the
most challenging I've ever flow. It puts you about 1,000 feet AGL at
less than a mile from the numbers. I have a hard time landing in the
Mooney w/o running over. I'm sure the jet jocks that fly in there
regularly must be cheating the approach. I've broken out more than
once only to look straight down at the numbers. Technically its listed
as a circle approach (even though its aligned with the runway) but
I've never seen anyone do the circle, certainly not any jets.

-robert

On Apr 4, 9:08*am, The Visitor
wrote:
Well when you break out why not circle left or right? It would be a good
opportunity to shed some altitude.

In theory you can tell the tower you are going to do that. I've never
flow the approach without a warning that there was a Gulf Stream or
similar in trail though. I'm not sure what the tower would do if you
said you needed to circle but I wouldn't be surprised if they sent you
back to approach. The "line up" for the approach is pretty far out;
likely because of the dense LA traffic and the fact that there are
always several jets on the approach.
Interestingly tower always provides speed checks on final. Its the
only tower I've ever seen that does that. As you cross the fence you
get a "your fast"; "on speed" etc.

-Robert

Ah, good point. Didn't know it was that busy.

I guess if the ban sticks, a lot of the income will dry up and the
airport will be closer, to being closed. Just one more nail....

John





Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Apr 4, 9:08 am, The Visitor
wrote:

Well when you break out why not circle left or right? It would be a good
opportunity to shed some altitude.


In theory you can tell the tower you are going to do that. I've never
flow the approach without a warning that there was a Gulf Stream or
similar in trail though. I'm not sure what the tower would do if you
said you needed to circle but I wouldn't be surprised if they sent you
back to approach. The "line up" for the approach is pretty far out;
likely because of the dense LA traffic and the fact that there are
always several jets on the approach.
Interestingly tower always provides speed checks on final. Its the
only tower I've ever seen that does that. As you cross the fence you
get a "your fast"; "on speed" etc.

-Robert

[Default] On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:47:18 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

We need more property manager expertise in today's airport managers.

We need the appropriate parties to bring suit against the city of
Santa Monica for permitting housing development so close to the
airport.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

[Default] On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:47:18 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

We need more property manager expertise in today's airport managers.

We need the appropriate parties to bring suit against the city of
Santa Monica for permitting housing development so close to the
airport.

Have you contacted the Caaliafornia Pilots' Assn?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:58:43 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

[Default] On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:47:18 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

We need more property manager expertise in today's airport managers.

We need the appropriate parties to bring suit against the city of
Santa Monica for permitting housing development so close to the
airport.

Have you contacted the Caaliafornia Pilots' Assn?


I'm not personally involved in the issue, but the CPA is a good group:
http://www.calpilots.org

In article Stella Starr writes:

If you go look at the local paper (it takes a while to load, as they're
back in the 20th century and put a PDF of the thing on their website)
you'll note a couple interesting things, including a number of runway
overrun accidents in recent years. And after the jump (when the story's
continued to page 17) the aerial photo shows the city snuggled right up
around the landing strip, a clear example of bad metro development.

http://www.smdp.com/site/archives/032908.pdf

The story tells of a proposal to buy up homes to give a little safety
room around the airport, but a lot of homeowners resist the idea, which
would be pretty spendy (California real estate -- ya THINK?!) and kind
of after the fact.

We need more property manager expertise in today's airport managers.


I think you will find that there were houses just across the street
from both ends of the runway at Santa Monica well over 30 years ago.

I know that they were there 30 years ago when I first flew in and out
of SMO. They were nowhere near new, then, either. I would expect that
50 to 60 years back there were houses at both ends.

Yes, we need to not build up housing in the desirable area around
airports, but this is not a recent problem. As I mentioned before,
they had a big "NO JETS" on the slope just before runway 21 back in
1977, which was about the time they lost on banning jets then.

(I think they claimed jets were noisier, and lost when it was pointed
out that some jets are quieter than props. But, that was a long time
ago, and I was not that intimately involved with activity there.)


Alan

In article Larry Dighera writes:

Here's a case of national proportions to watch:


FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN


Well, Santa Monica lost about 30 years ago. I am sure they have been
trying to figure a way to ban jets ever since then.

There used to be a huge "NO JETS" on the sloping ground between Bundy
Drive and the approach end of runway 21.

Hopefully the FAA will insist that the city return money used on airport
improvements, or some similar action to convince the city of the error of
its ways.

Alan

On Apr 3, 12:09 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Larry Dighera writes:

Here's a case of national proportions to watch:

FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN

Well, Santa Monica lost about 30 years ago. I am sure they have been
trying to figure a way to ban jets ever since then.

There used to be a huge "NO JETS" on the sloping ground between Bundy
Drive and the approach end of runway 21.

Hopefully the FAA will insist that the city return money used on airport
improvements, or some similar action to convince the city of the error of
its ways.

Alan

Mmmm, condos, swimming pools, movie stars. Any payments to FAA will be
covered by the first years' property taxes from redevelopment...JG