Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic

Here's a case of national proportions to watch:


FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197507)
Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it, the city council there has
effectively shortened the single runway at Santa Monica Airport by
declaring stretches of pavement at each end as runway safety areas
(RSAs). That will effectively shorten the runway to the point
where Category C (approach speed of greater than 120 knots) and
larger aircraft won't be able to use the runway. According to the
city, that will cut 9,000 operations a year at the airport. Now,
SMO doesn't have RSAs and the FAA normally encourages and even
mandates

(http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari)
RSAs at other airports but there's plenty of wiggle room in
determining how much safety is practical.

FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197507)

Let's hope the FAA has grown longer fangs since King Daley dusted them in
Chicago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Apr 2, 1:41*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Here's a case of national proportions to watch:

* * FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN

I just can't imagine that this will stand. Most of the planes coming
and going at SMO are jets. SMO is the airport used by most of the
Hollywood types. I've been to the FBO there when they've had jets
waiting in line just to enter the FBO ramp.

-Robert

[Default] On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

I just can't imagine that this will stand.

While I would suppose the FAA has final authority over how airports
are designed, the city's action does seem to put FAA in an awkward
position of removing "safety enhancements." I know the FAA is
supposed to conduct annual airport audits. Presumably, if issues are
discovered, the airport management/owner(s) are required to correct
them, or face fines or other action.

Have you any idea of the current state of jet operations at KSMO? Are
the jets using the safety areas for operations (thus ignoring the
city's unauthorized changes), or are jets going elsewhere?

Larry Dighera writes:

Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it ...

Yeah, the FAA sure showed the mayor of Chicago who's boss, didn't it?

[Default] On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:40:46 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:

Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it ...

Yeah, the FAA sure showed the mayor of Chicago who's boss, didn't it?

It would seem that the "fix was in" in that case, although FAA did
impose the maximum fines authorized at the time.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it ...

Yeah, the FAA sure showed the mayor of Chicago who's boss, didn't it?

You don't fly snd you have no idea of what you're talking about.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Larry Dighera writes:

Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it ...

Yeah, the FAA sure showed the mayor of Chicago who's boss, didn't it?

Mixi, you are one dumb mother ****er. You are just a waste of good
oxygen.

Larry Dighera wrote:


FAA CHALLENGES SANTA MONICA JET BAN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197507)
Despite repeated warnings from the FAA that it has no intention of
letting Santa Monica get away with it, the city council there has
effectively shortened the single runway at Santa Monica Airport by
declaring stretches of pavement at each end as runway safety areas
(RSAs). That will effectively shorten the runway to the point
where Category C (approach speed of greater than 120 knots) and
larger aircraft won't be able to use the runway.

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.

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

True -- but more importantly we need stupid, know-nothing bureaucrats to
keep their hands off the airports.

Our airport in Iowa City is a perfect example. At one time, it owned
everything around. Then, in the 50s and 60s, it sold a bunch of land to a
nearby farmer.

Then, in the 80s and 90s, the airport bought most of it back for clear
zones. That farmer's family made MILLIONS on *that* act of stupidity.

Here's an even worse example: Recently, in an effort to make the airport
self-sufficient, a previous airport commission carved off a chunk of airport
land, named it "North Airport Commerce Park", and tried to lease it out to
businesses, in hopes of providing a steady stream of non-tax income to keep
the airport running.

Great idea -- until the city "experts" got ahold of it. After an incredible
series of bureaucratic blunders our airport is now FAR worse off than
before.

Example: When creating the "commerce park" our city "experts" counted the
easements into the total square footage, and came up with a per-acre priced
based on land that no one could use. When the error was discovered, they
simply upped the price per acre to keep the value the same, because "that's
what they needed". This raised the price far above surrounding available
land, and no one wanted it.

Another example: Wal-Mart wanted to buy all the land, for a fantastic
price. Some idiot city bureaucrat didn't file all the zoning paperwork
correctly, which gave the anti-Wal-Mart activists a way to legally challenge
Wal-Mart's purchase.

After several years of screwing around in court, with no end in sight,
Wal-Mart just said "To hell with Iowa City" and walked away from the deal.
The land lost a prime retail area, and the airport lost millions of dollars.

Now, after sitting empty for years, the city is selling the land off at
bargain prices. And NOT giving the airport the money!

So, rather than making the airport self-sufficient, we have:

1. Lost our North/South runway
2. Lost land for future expansion
3. Not gained a nickel for the airport, because the city is going to keep
the money from the land purchase.
4. The businesses they're selling to are crap. Warehouses, outside
storage -- all the junk you DON'T want around your airport.

Talk about a cluster-f*ck. It's truly been an education in just how bad
government bureaucrats can be.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"