FOSP Airport Update

Aircraft Emissions

Airport Neighbors experienced an unusual event recently—a reprieve from the buzzing of aircraft over their homes. The Santa Monica Airport (SMO) was closed for four days, Sept. 20-23, to complete runway maintenance. The City of Santa Monica took advantage of this time to conduct baseline measurements of air quality to enable more accurate assessment of aircraft emissions.

Residents in close proximity to SMO have voiced their concerns about aircraft emission impacts, particularly jet fumes, on their family’s health. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) conducted an emission study at SMO in 2006 and 2007. The baseline measurements in the absence of aircraft will allow comparison to data collected from previous air quality studies to fully assess aircraft emission impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Results of the newest study are expected early next year.

Sunset Park and Ocean Park Residents Up in Arms about Proposed Flight Path Changes

From Dec. 2009-June 2010 the FAA conducted a trial of diverting Instrument Flight Rules (IFR-aircraft that fly with instrument navigation aids) piston powered (propeller) planes at a 250 degree heading placing them over dense residential areas of Sunset Park and Ocean Park. The FAA claims this test heading will increase a safety margin between LAX flight paths and reduce aircraft idling times at both LAX and SMO by diverting slower aircraft IVR aircraft (prop planes) out of the way of faster IVR aircraft (jets and turbo props). Residents in the impacted areas have complained to the City officials and Congressional representatives of significant noise impacts during the test period. In response, the City conducted a Noise Modeling analysis and has engaged the services of an aviation consultant to study alternatives.

The FAA has stated only an average of 8 aircraft a day were being diverted, but residents have claim there were significantly more aircraft flying over their neighborhoods. The noise modeling results, presented at the September Airport Commission Meeting, were calculated using the FAA’s reported 8 aircraft per day. The results showed an increase of 3dB CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) in the affected areas. CNEL decibel measurements are in a logarithmic averaging scale. Although, a 3dB difference is fairly significant, residents fear the manner in which the FAA gages noise impacts will lead the FAA to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and therefore would not be required to do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The noise analysis also did a sampling of fight tracks over the impacted areas. These flight track grids definitely appear to verify residents’ claims that more than 8 aircraft were flying over their homes. Residents are now demanding additional noise studies to take into account which appears to be more aircraft than the FAA reported.

Court Case to be heard on C and D Aircraft Ban

Both east and west SMO runway ends are situated within 300ft of residential homes, creating heightened safety risks in the neighborhoods directly adjacent to the runway. In response to residents’ concerns, the City of Santa Monica attempted to diminish this safety risk to airport neighbors by negotiating with the FAA for installation of 300ft runway safety areas (the airport currently has none) and the elimination of faster, larger, Category C and D aircraft that SMO was not designed to accommodate. These accommodations would have basically brought the airport into compliance with the FAA’s recommended safety standards.

Even so, after many years of negotiations, the FAA would only offer the City substandard EMAS (Engineered Materials Arresting System). [EMAS is a collapsible concrete material designed to “capture” aircraft in the event of a runway overrun.] City Council voted in March 2008, using their proprietary power as operator of the airport, to approve a City ordinance eliminating the unsafe C and D aircraft. The City ordinance was challenged by the FAA. A ruling was handed down in the FAA’s favor. Oral arguments in the appellate case were scheduled to begin October 14 in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Stay tuned.