If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original errors. Land in the heart of metropolitan cities is worth more than gold. To acquire metropolitan real estate, the emperor of Chicago finally resorted to a midnight bulldozer raid on his own airport. The same thing happened in the '70s at Dana Point Airport(?). This shortsighted malfeasance is rapacious. Is Santa Monica next? FAA moves to block ban on fastest jets at Santa Monica Airport http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1,780534.story City officials, citing safety concerns, say they will begin implementing the ban today in defiance of the FAA. By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer April 24, 2008 The Federal Aviation Administration took legal action Wednesday to overturn a ban on the fastest jets that fly out of Santa Monica Airport, including aircraft popular among business executives. FAA officials served the city of Santa Monica with a cease-and-desist order challenging a municipal ordinance passed in November -- and effective today -- that bars jets with approach speeds of greater than 136 mph. The so-called Category C and D jets include such popular models as the Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft. They account for about 9,000 landings and departures a year, or about 7% of flight operations. "We've worked very hard for nearly six years to reach an agreement with the city of Santa Monica that addresses their concerns and maintains access to the airport for all kinds of aircraft," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "We made multiple proposals to the city, all of which the city rejected." Citing safety as its paramount concern, the Santa Monica City Council unanimously passed the ... Moutrie wrote that the FAA "is already under criticism and pressure from Congress for putting aviation industry convenience ahead of public safety. The city urges you to change your course and steadfastly put public safety first." Council members approved the ban, saying it would protect the public, particularly residents living immediately next to the ends of the airport runway and individuals using and working at the airport. Residents of Santa Monica and the Mar Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles have complained for years that the airport's location and lack of runway buffers create the potential for a deadly accident. Additional interesting information on this subject: http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080424ca.html http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caban.pdf Your enforcement of the Ordinance on April 24, 2008, can only be interpreted as an attempt to divest the FAA of its jurisdiction over its administrative process to which the City, as a federally obligated airport, must adhere. Moreover, your attempted enforcement of the City's Ordinance also suggests a complete disregard for the FAA's authority and responsibility as the final arbiter of aviation safety in the National Air Transportation System. The FAA cannot countenance enforcement of the Ordinance under these circumstances while ... http://www.smgov.net/cmo/FAACeaseandDesist.pdf UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC ) IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE ) WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS ) BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, ) CALIFORNIA ) ------------- ) FAA Docket No. 16-02-08 INTERIM CEASE AND DESIST ORDER This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on a Notice of Investigation (NOI) dated October 8, 2002, initiated by the Director of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and supplemented by his March 26, 2008 Order to Show Cause. The NOI and Order to Show Cause were issued in accordance with the FAA Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 16. The FAA's investigation seeks to determine the legality of the City of Santa Monica, California's ("the City") Ordinance adopted on March 25,2008 ("Ordinance") banning Category C and D aircraft operations from the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa). The City's banning Category C and D jet aircraft from SMO... http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008...nforcement.pdf Your communication warns Mr. Trimborn that if he fails to accede to the demand, the FAA will issue a cease and desist order requiring the City refrain from enforcing City Ordinande No. 2251 pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated over five years ago and recently attempted to "revive" through issuance of an Order to Show Cause. Your letter claims that the proceeding was "stayed.," but in vact there was no stay and the 120 day period for decision expired without extension. http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/200...a_faa_2wa.html Ian Gregor: Well, we've said in the past that we don't believe that cities have the authority, first of all, to decide which aircraft can and cannot use airports, and secondly, we've said that the city of Santa Monica has made a series of agreements with the federal government over the last six plus decades that precludes them from banning any aircraft from their airport. Steve Julian: Now, city officials yesterday told the Los Angeles Times they're going to implement the ban anyway. What action can the FAA take if the city doesn't abide by the cease and desist order? .... Gregor: Sure. Well, Santa Monica is a unique situation, because most cities don't allow developers to build homes right up to the edge of an airport. That said, these larger jets, these category C and D jets, have been landing safely at Santa Monica for years, and years, and years. It's perfectly safe for these planes to land on a runway the length of which Santa Monica has. We have made a number of safety proposals over the years that would build runway safety areas at either both runway ends, or the departure end of the runway that's most heavily used, and we've also offered to fund a residential acquisition program if the city wants to buy up some homes to create a larger runway protection zone. And unfortunately, the city has rejected all of those proposals. Julian: A lot of people may not want to sell their homes or lose them. Gregor: Well again, that's really the city's decision as to what they want to do. We've made proposals that would build larger safety areas at each runway end, without eating up so much runway that, you know, certain jets would be effectively precluded from using the airport. And we think those are excellent safety options, and the city has rejected them. http://www.knbc.com/travelgetaways/15978421/detail.html Those in violation of the ordinance could be subject to misdemeanor charges, fines and possibly jail sentences. The law will not apply to jets from other areas that landed earlier this week and will depart today, according to The Times. "We will start enforcing the law and see what happens. This is the council's decision," Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie told The Times. http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...onica-airport/ It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between 1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination. The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to operators of other classes of aircraft.” http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Sa...egal_move.html Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of the runway's end. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 22 | April 7th 08 10:52 PM |
Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To Build Their Homes Adjacent To It? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 16 | May 7th 07 10:34 PM |
If Santa were generous | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 15 | January 5th 07 09:19 PM |
Santa Monica (KSMO) Tips or Gotchas? | Hamish Reid | Piloting | 9 | July 12th 05 11:51 PM |
What do you think of my Monica propeller/rotor ? | Claude GUTH | Rotorcraft | 0 | April 13th 04 12:48 PM |