FOSP Airport Update

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules against City in C and D Aircraft Ban

Jan. 21, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling denying the City of Santa Monica’s appeal of a 2009 FAA decision and subsequent court injunction preventing Santa Monica from implementing a City ordinance enacted on March 25, 2008. This ordinance banned larger, faster Category C and D aircraft from using the Santa Monica Airport because the runway was not designed to accommodate these aircraft, lacked runway safety areas, and therefore posed a risk to the surrounding residential areas where homes are located within 250 feet of the runway ends.

The FAA argued successfully that the ordinance violated Santa Monica’s obligations under Grant Assurance 22. The City of Santa Monica had received federal grant funds for Airport improvements. Acceptance of grant funds come with obligations including keeping the airport “for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical uses with the exception that the Petitioner (Santa Monica) may prohibit certain types of aircraft if such action is necessary for the safe operation for the airport.”

The court did not agree with the argument put forth by the City of Santa Monica that the Category C and D aircraft posed a safety risk. Even though Category C and D aircraft regularly use the Santa Monica Airport, the airport is classified by the FAA’s own design standards as Category B designed only to accommodate up to Category B aircraft. The Santa Monica Airport also lacks runway safety areas. Current requirements for airports designed to accommodate Category C and D aircraft is 1000ft runway safety area on each runway end. For design category B, the runway safety area requirement is 300ft. Santa Monica airport has none.

The Court also agreed with the FAA’s argument that runway overruns by Category C and D aircraft were “extremely rare” and that accidents were more likely to be caused by the slower, smaller Category A and B aircraft. The FAA presented statistics that the most recent accidents at the Santa Monica airport involved single engine propeller planes not the larger, faster turbo driven aircraft.

City cited runway overrun incidents at other airports involving the proposed banned aircraft. If similar accidents occurred at SMO, the path of destruction would be well into residential areas. These arguments fell on deaf court ears.

In the language of the ruling, it became apparent the cards were stacked against the City. The court stated there is a “highly deferential standard of review” in cases where a federal agency’s administrative finding is at issue. The court further noted that “this court presumes agency actions to be valid.”

The Court did not rule on the dispute of the Grant Assurance expiration date. The City of Santa Monica claims it is 2015, twenty years after the last grant was implemented. The FAA argues that it is 2023, twenty years after the last installment of funds from the last grant was accepted by the City.

The City could ask for a review of the decision or appeal it to the Supreme Court.