FAA Will Probably Fight Ruling
Despite threats from the FAA, the
city council in Santa Monica, CA approved an ordinance this week to
ban Category C and D aircraft from Santa Monica Airport (SMO.)
In a unanimous 7-0 vote, the council ruled Tuesday to restrict
planes with approach speeds greater than 121 knots. That vote comes
after five years if negotiations with the FAA, which opposes the
measure, reports The Santa Monica Lookout.
Lawmakers also derided an FAA plan to buy homes around the
airport, to make room for a proposed runway extension to support
the larger planes.
"I think we went above and beyond the call of duty trying to get
somewhere with the FAA, but it is just not happening when we get a
letter that suggests we seriously consider buying up homes," said
Mayor Richard Bloom.
"The FAA is clearly not paying attention to the beliefs and
norms in Santa Monica," Bloom added. "We support letting people
keep their homes and taking away housing when there is another
reasonable alternative is offensive and absurd."
Ahead of the vote, FAA officials said they'd fight Santa
Monica's council.
"What you are considering by this proposed ordinance is flatly
illegal as drafted," wrote Kirk Shaffer, FAA associate
administrator for airports, in a letter to city officials. "The
City should expect the agency to expeditiously use its authority
and all available means, if the ordinance is adopted as proposed,
to ensure that all federal rights, investments and obligations are
protected and that no aircraft is denied access to SMO."
If the FAA sues Santa Monica, which appears likely, the new law
will be tied up in the courts for some time.
The FAA states a 1984 settlement with the city -- which settled
a 1979 attempt by Santa Monica to restrict jet access -- gives the
agency control of SMO through 2015... and also allows Category C
and D planes to operate there, despite its official B-II
classification.
City officials reply runway length should keep larger, faster
planes from using the airport; in fact, they say the airport
doesn't meet the FAA's own standards for a B-II airport.
The council's ruling had the support of SMO airport director
Robert Trimborn... who feels the FAA is trying to do too much, with
too little airport.
"The ordinance is necessary because the airport has unique
circumstances -- homes are just across the street from the runway
ends and within 300 feet of the runway ends," said Trimborn.
"Dangers resulting from homes being in close proximity to the
runway and topography (the airport sits on a plateau) are worsened
by the change in the fleet.
The number of faster aircraft has increased dramatically in
recent years, faster aircraft that could travel further into
residential neighborhoods in the event of an overrun," Trimborn
said. "Any minimal inconvenience to those traveling by private jet
aircraft and any minor impact on commerce will be greatly
outweighed by the benefit of protecting the safety of airport
neighborhood and the flying public."
That view conflicts with some airport operators, afraid a ban on
larger planes will hurt their businesses.
"The 1984 settlement agreement was material inducement to the
development of our parcel," said Jay Becker, a representative for
an airport leaseholder. "We spent millions of dollars relying upon
the fact that access to aircraft that could become our customers
would be guaranteed.
"If you eliminate the top portion of our clientele, how do you
expect to compensate us?" Becker asked Council members. "Would you
write us a big check?"