As I was reading coverage of the announcement that Santa Monica’s airport is to be closed on Dec. 31, 2028, I couldn’t help but shake my head. Yes, I’m sad. But reading the FAA Administrator’s comments provides a blueprint for opportunity.
When commenting on the agreement, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said, “This is a fair resolution for all concerned because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public’s interest in making local decisions about land use practices and its interests in safe and efficient aviation services.”
There you have it. The head of the FAA views airports as a local land use decision. And it is. When was the last time the FAA decreed an airport be born where a shopping center stands? Or forced a community to take grant money it didn’t apply for?
Some communities find their airport has more value than a host of other potential opportunities. That’s why they invest and protect. And in those cases, the FAA is more often than not a friend.
I don’t believe the FAA is the enemy. At least not in this case.
The City of Santa Monica — its leadership anyway — made it absolutely clear: We don’t want the airport. And like a weary parent listening to the never-ending tantrum of a child, the FAA finally caved, if for no other reason than to get a few minutes of peace and quiet.
Had the city valued the airport more than a park or business option, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
So what can we do? Like a Flight Review, we should add Airport Investment Reviews to our efforts. In this case, throughout the year, via coordinated effort (I’m looking at you NBAA and AOPA) we meet with area elected and business leaders.
Take them on a tour of the airport in the spring. Take them for a flight in the summer. Show them the contingency plans the area first responders have in place — should the worst happen — and how they plan to use the airport in the fall. Show them the economic impact of the airport. And help them to understand what that impact means in the winter. Rinse and repeat.
But an Airport Investment Review would be hard — like maintaining a healthy lifestyle. We must eat a well balanced diet, get some exercise and a good night’s sleep. Those choices form the foundation of good health. And you can’t do it every now and again. It requires continuous vigilance. While living a healthy lifestyle doesn’t guarantee a life free of heart attack, it certainly reduces the chances.
The question is, are we aviators going to let anger cloud our collective abilities, or will we see this as the opportunity it is?
Me? I’m hoping for the latter.
I can’t wait for those IYI (Intellectuals Yet Idiots) in Santa Monica to realize the 3000 ft ceiling protecting them will go away and massive superjumbos the size of A380s and 777s will freely fly at 1500 ft over their heads full power on. With nothing they can do.
Add to that a cleanup effort needed as the ground has a lot of toxic pollutants and their Melo-Roos will jump in the many digits for many decades.
Meanwhile all the money will go to greedy developers that will make SM into Century City blocking countless ocean views and making the price of all other properties dive.
The promised park? It will be a joke the size of the Virginia Park with the rest full of skyscrappers and traffic making the whole city a virtual gridlock, next to the I10 also gridlocked forever.
The only good thing will be a lot of homeless able to puke and poop there and maybe setup tent campgrounds.
And instead of fake 100LL minuscule pollution they will all enjoy the diesel, the traffic and the noise of 20% more residents crammed into those golden 227 acres.
This is why I wonder how some people can breathe such is their level of idiocy.
El Monte airport was going to be shut years ago but I remember my father and many of his pilot friends taking the time and energy to fight what entities that were involved. El Monte did close for some time when I was 16 and Bracket was the next field to get any GA. That was over 50 years ago. It was good for El Monte and the community to keep the airport. It took time. It took people in the aviation community to make it happen…the FAA was going to close it.
Santa Monica airport is worth fighting for.
The argument for pollution is bogus. The reality is the FAA is lazy and Santa Monica gov. Is greedy. So many small airports have disappeared over the years for the same reason…the land is valuable & someone wants to develope it.
There are many who have learned to fly out of that airport that would come together to flight FAA & Santa Monica to keep it open.
I see here we have a few “capitalist” in the crowd? I’m with U guys!!!
Ben’s attitude and opinion clearly doesn’t match that of the aviation community, and I flat disagree with him. There is no benefit for anyone out of this SMO closure since the outcome will not be a park, but will be development, traffic, greater air pollution from the traffic.
What’s odd is that the agreements with the city and the FAA covered two parcels, and the larger one required the airport to be maintained in perpetuity.
The immediate closure is for the western end, and the mid and east ends will allow 3500 feet of runway, not enough for jets but certainly enough for piston aircraft and turboprops. This 3500 parcel is the area that had been agreed to in perpetuity, yet the FAA waived this and has agreed to the total closure, a travesty in my opinion.
Truth is the JETS are what caused all the problems. If the airport stayed with single engine prop planes and did some reasonable monitoring of bad actors there wouldn’t be a whisper about the airport.
HUGE JETS landing at full throttle wheels down in the middle of the night and the huge amount of jet exhaust pumped into our homes killed the airport.
Good Riddence
Thank Schwarzenegger for that!
I have a problem with your assertion.
SMO does not have arresting wires and barrier. So no jet has ever landed there at full throttle gear down.
Large jets will generally set up for a landing about 10 miles out. They will get configured (gear, slats, flaps) and use a power setting for a stabilized approach to landing. There will be no full throttle ops doing this, because they would be going too fast to land or be in the landing configuration.
You might hear them change to reverse thrusters to shorten the amount of runway they need to stop.
I doubt you will smell a lot of burnt Jet fuel, unless you are on the airport. I know I didn’t when I was around the Burbank airport and it is an “airline” airport (or was when I lived in California in the ’80s-’90s). Same issue with the San Jose airport, and I lived there if I wasn’t in SoCAL.
Meanwhile, the fights over curfews with the FAA probably included older jets that are probably out of the system these days.
As you can see, I have some experience as a pilot (single engine land) and someone who lived in the approach of more than one airport that had/has jet traffic.
I’m not in the cockpit but I can tell you it sounds like full throttle. The jets at Santa Monica want to come in below the marine layer so more thrust further out.
The airport was never intended for jets and they NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN allowed. Like many things it started small but then exploded.
NO MORE JETS. If it takes closing the airport too bad.
What are you going to do when the multi-fan drones start to fly over you? They will be low and loud. Amazon and Uber will be flying goods and people in them.
Given the area of SMO, any large jet coming into SMO will be under positive control of ATC, probably on an Instrument Flight Plan. They will want to be under such control since ATC is required to provide separation — see and avoid is a bit tough when traffic is compressed below CLASS B shelves (the area above and around LAX for a 30NM radius).
These Jets do not run in under a marine layer to make their lives easier, they are either flying an approach assigned by ATC, OR, they are flying Vectors and altitudes. In either case, at a certain point are told to change frequency to SMO’s Freq. Now, that “approach” may be a visual, once they descend to 1000 AGL and have 1+ miles of visibility (depends on the class of the aircraft — class being determined by approach speed they have to fly — faster you fly, the greater the visibility requirements are). Or they get to decision hight and can see the runway w/ correct visibility and can land — else they have to go “missed” which is a full throttle situation to arrest their sink rate, and clean up (gear up, reduction in flaps…) “go around” — also known as TOGA.
Lastly, provide the DB levels for these aircraft. There should have been a sound level study. It should be at threshold, .5 miles, 1, 3, 5, etc. to show how much noise these Jets were making — all part of the problems with the City and SMO and the restrictions the City attempted to apply.
I’ve been involved with someone who complained a lot at a certain airport about the Jet traffic. Most of the time she was oblivious to that traffic because she didn’t see them. They were using the newer turbo-fan engines that are quite quiet. But that is anecdotal. Never the less the Life-Flight helicopters that were based/refueled there made a lot more noise than those jets.
Administrator Heurta should step down and apologize to the aviation community.(really he should be fired so he does not get a fat pension.)
I’ve been saying that since he replaced Randy Babbitt. The guy is nothing but a smooth talking politician. He doesn’t know diddly squat about aviation … other than the ‘buzz words.’
It’s time to get someone running the FAA that knows something about ALL facets of aviation and supports same.
HEAR HEAR!! & Amen.
Once again the FAA shows it’s true colors. Just a bunch of bureaucrats that are on a Mission to destroy General Aviation and cater to the big money folks. G.A. hadto fight for years and milions of dollars to get rd of the Class 3 medical bull crap and do it through congress because the FAA would not give up the fight to ground any body that could not be a TOP GUN type guy. but Congress saw how stupid the FAA is and helped the little guys.
To all you Santa Monica’s airport little guys and all the young folks that might want to go see the airplanes come and go, TOUGH CRAP for you take up boating because the FAA wants you/us GONE!
Why else does the comment fit so well and last so long ” The FAA isn’t Happy till YOUR UNHAPPY”
Santa Monica, hey the FAA is happy soon you’ll be like MIEGS field. oh now it’s basically an empty lot where you can let your dog take a dump and the city only got a little slap on the hand from the FAA for breaking the law back then.
If President Trump does not overhaul the FAA General Aviation is SCREWED.
I have to say that I am surprised, and a bit disappointed in your view point regarding SMO Ben. Huerta’s position that this is fair for all parties is clearly one of a bureaucrat who know doubt was told what to do.
That same bureaucrat leading, what has now become the FAA, also sat by as the FAA made backroom deals with NOAA on overflight of west coast “animal sanctuaries” without any pilot or aviation expert in a review position. By the way, there are no records of flight issues over these areas. The same one that refused to move on the Third Class Medical ruling – truly spineless and what I would classify as a typical politician when it comes to lifting the heavy load.
Perhaps a review is in order here. First, it has been clear that the Santa Monica political types wanted to close the airport for well over a decade. It is unfortunate that the SMO pilot group didn’t truly engage until a few years ago. They have since organized into a great organization, but it was a little bit late.
I’d like to know how an airport advisory board can exist without any airport expertise, with the possible exception of the airport manager who like most, was in a very bad position – complain and you’re fired. When you consider that the SMO advisory board had realtor’s on the board, that should tell you what the mindset of the SMO politicians was from the very beginning.
It is the FAA’s job to protect airports which are part of the nation’s transportation system. This FAA is focused on the airlines and obviously doesn’t care about general aviation. When you have a dysfunctional organization – look at the leader – it’s that simple.
The airport was originally turned over to the city of Santa Monica in agreement for it to remain as an airport in perpetuity. I guess that’s not going to happen now is it?
The Santa Monica City Council lied regarding the costs of the airport and refused to include all revenue to make its case. This has always been about money. Most airport issues usually are.
The public has been misled by the Santa Monica City Council over and over. If the people of Santa Monica believe that the airport property is going to be turned in to a park they are in for a surprise. Say hello to several multi story business buildings, more traffic and pollution, noise and chemical, and more. Oh I have no doubt they will fit a little park in there but it will be miniature when compared to the business and apartment buildings.
Once again the politician’s have failed the people – but, I guess we’ve come to that point in our existence that this is the norm. Sad, very sad.
Fair to all parties? No, it’s a one sided result and the winners will be disappointed when they realize that instead of a park with butterflies and birds they will get multi-use development with high traffic densities and worse air quality than they have now. Look at the density down at Hughes Airport and transpose that to Santa Monica.
Studies are done using an assumption of ten VTPD (vehicular trips per day) for each residence – and it is often more than that. The airport will be redeveloped with multi-use, theaters, restaurants, and a lot of transient traffic. The activity will be constant and the air pollution will be significant, not to mention noise from trucks, police vehicles etc. Have you noticed the air brakes on a semi that delivers supplies to a grocery store in the middle of the night? This is what is coming, folks.
When ElToro Airport was being debated I spoke to Mestre Greve, the noise consultant, and I was told that airports put out tiny amounts of pollution overall since they have thirty flights an hour per runway (maximum) and they occupy large areas of real estate.
The residents posted ad nauseum on a local paper and quoted smog / pollution studies, so I looked up the reports and I found that the one of greatest concern was on the eastern side of the east end perimeter road, but there were two pollution meters. The one on the airport side of the road measured insignificant readings but the one on the eastern side (downwind side) of the road measured high readings – of course, the people posting used the high reading, assuming or suggesting that the pollution came from the airport use but it was actually from the vehicles that use the perimeter road outside the airport.
I reckon that the residents have fooled themselves and have made a mistake, but only time will tell. By the time the airport is redeveloped almost all the present residents will have moved on and a new crop will be arguing about it.
It was actually the Department of Transportation that effectively stopped the FAA proposal for Third Class Medical Reform. The FAA submitted their 68 pages proposal to the D.O.T. For approval. The D.O.T. sent back a 22 page response and that was the end of it. Then Congress stepped in and took care of it for us.
I’m no fan of Mr. Huerta’s decision to let the city out of it’s obligation to operate the Airport in perpetuity. That is just plain wrong.
Truthfully, there have been efforts to close SMO since the 1960s when my family lived there and my Dad took me flying at Gunnell Aviation and Santa Monica Flyers.
The airport does have historical value besides Douglas Aircraft. Clover Field was the starting point for the first Women’s Air Derby, but what is history when some developers want to make some money and the city wants more tax revenue?
I think part of the Administrator’s thinking may have been influenced by the shrinking and aging of the Pilot population. Twelve years from now, how many of us will still be flying? I’m a second generation Pilot and I’ll be 72. Dad passed away in December 2015 at age 90. How many kids are learning or yearning to fly that will fill the holes in our ranks?
Additionally I expect the active GA fleet of aircraft is going to shrink due to the cost of equipping for ADS-B.
I would like to see the airport stay and I would like to see GA prosper. I would also like to see the FAA fulfill it’s original mandate from Congress: “to promote the safety and development of Civil Aviation”. I’m not holding my breath.
Brian, KSMO is in a wealthy area, and while the cost of aviation rises annually, people with money will always want the privilege of being able to travel without undergoing the misery of dealing with airport security, the low quality of the major airlines, and the ridiculous check in delays etc.
There is strong demand for GA at KSMO, and that won’t change. The only thing that constrains demand is supply in West L.A., so while hobby aviation might diminish, the demand for airport space in major metropolitan areas will continue, especially in prosperous West L.A..
The strain KSMO closing on other airports will be difficult to accommodate. Whiteman, Van Nuys, Hawthorne are the only GA airports in the region, and all are full.
This closure (without public hearings) is outrageous – curse Huerta for that.
But the other issue is public safety. When the Northridge earthquake occurred KSMO was the staging area for rescue aircraft, and is the receiving airport for air ambulance to the major hospitals in West L.A. The loss of this facility is going to be felt in various ways for decades.
Perhaps the FEMA people need to have a chat with the city?
And perhaps the regional airport people who need airports to be relievers to Burbank and LAX, etc. should have a chat with the city?
Maybe the airport groups at SMO should have those conversations and then take out ads in the papers and quote them on the problem losing SMO will cause?
Maybe, even get on TV showing them what the myopia of the SMO City Council will do to the LA area.
Since I don’t live there any more, I don’t have contacts or reasons to go there for this kind of thing (too expensive for me to fund out of my own pocket).
But it seems that someone should be doing this kind of thing.
I am personally very disappointed in the FAA.
Who in general aviation isn’t disappointed with that agency?
Over the last 50 years we have been told repeatedly that our gov’t is supposed to protect the minorities from the over reach of the majority.
It seems in this case the majority ( local loud protesters ) have had their will prevail over the minority ( a much smaller pilot population).
Completely ignoring the fact that the city signed an agreement, a contract, to keep the airport an airport in perpetuity.
That means forever.
The key to all this is the above statement in a comment essentially that “…The Santa Monica local “Land Grab and Tax Flow Increase” lawyers went to law school and were indoctrinated into a way of thinking where first, “the right answer is determined”, then they find a lot of books and employ novel reasoning to develop a “so called” “truth”, where no other less clever person, or any more geographically distant person could see it before. Then they act in favor of the local money grabbing “special interests”.
Airports are a national if not global asset, but right now they’re not treated that way. Instead, powerful local financial (shopping center and condo?) forces will always ultimately dominate and win, if not otherwise “checked” by a larger more broadly visionary entities (i.e., the state, or national, or commercial interests- for example, a local OEM and big name freight haulers, for Seattle’s Boeing Field – KBFI).
Most important, FAA is no friend to airports whatsoever, even big ones (thats’ why the recent KORD massive $B boondoggle happened, and the Meigs fiasco happened). FAA is completely politically driven, pandering to construction ADAP/AIP interests, or equally driven by big money administration “du jour” interests. FAA especially does not give any more than a token nod of interest at most GA airports. In fact they do more damage than help at some, by driving absurd (less safe) modifications to otherwise entirely safe former USAAF or USN historic fields. That’s also why we’ve lost or ruined thousands of terrific local airports nationally for decades, even great ones, given to cities, after WWII, and countless private airports that were key to localities, because of FAA’s nearly complete abdication of interest in real airport support.
It is a special tragedy to lose Santa Monica, which played such a key role in aviation history (first “Around-the-World” flight and Douglas history).
Maybe now an an “Infrastructure” argument can be made with the new Administration, to help keep KSMO open in the “national interest”, like the Smithsonian and national parks, and as a close-in airport infrastructure alternative???… with the gimmick of using a political argument to help “stick it” to those California local left wing faux environmental whiners, who always vote until they’re deep blue.
America would be a much better place with out lawyers. or lets have lawyers but they can only get payed a salary of $25’000.00 dollars a year no matter what.
I do not support the closure of any airport. Another nail in the GA coffin. AND another precedent in the legal arena for future closures. If it does finally get closed, the Santa Monica should return the land to the Feds for use and benefit of the country; not the city of Santa Monica.
if it closes it should go to the defense department or turn it in to a federal prison. if the city wants it let them pay fair market value to reduce the federal deficit
It won’t be long after Clover Field disappears that the real estate developers start salivating at the prosects. AND, the City will love it because the potential for sizeable increases in tax revenue will be flowing into their coffers. Running a City is a Ponzi scheme. You don’t have to manage anything IF each successive year more money comes in. That’s what this is ultimately about. It isn’t noise, or pollution, or safety, or land use or obsolescence. It’s about a land grab for money.
If you wanna see what’s going to happen, just look straight south from Clover Field to the Hughes airport in Culver City. That, too, was closed and it’s getting tough to recognize the place as an airport.
The SADDEST thing is that Clover Field is such a historic airport. Go to Wikipedia and look up Santa Monica Island airport. In the late 60’s during the SST craze, they were going to build an island offshore to land SST’s. What a difference 50 years makes … now they’re tearing up this historic airport.
The entire premise of this article is wrong. An airport is NOT a local land issue. Airports are not used by locals only. Airports belong to the country. This is why a FEDERAL agency provides cash to keep them running. Santa Monica is stealing the airport and destroying a corner of the national fabric of places to use by the aviation community.
Administrator Heurta didn’t say the date is an absolute for KSMO. This date gives time to the aviation community to continue to show how the airport is an investment in the community. I’m not familiar with the election cycle for San Monica, CA, but I’m sure there are a few coming up prior to 31 Dec 28, which means there is time to educate current and future elected officials and more importantly, the local community on the necessity of an importance of an airport.
Or, it gives plenty of time to prepare for the funeral.
As I understand the agreement, it provides for reducing the runway length to 3500 feet immediately, and the remainder to close in 2028. I expect that the city will leap at this since it will close out jet traffic.
I saw an interview with Huerta and he was considered and precise, and spoke about the continuing litigation. However, I disagree with the total closure.
I do accept that the portion of the airport that is on land owned by the city is theirs, but the balance was said to be in perpetuity, so Huerta gave away the farm.
In the interview his remark was basically “What’s perpetuity in the view of a court?” That appeared to be the basis for his capitulation.
Airports build in the middle of nowhere, get encroached on and then become the enemy for building in the wrong place?
To the hundreds of surplus property airports that have had to rely on their agreements with the government to fight to stay open, good luck.
You have just been given the death notice by the most anti aviation administrator in FAA history.
I’ll stay away from Bryan’s politics and stick to the point – I’m involved in a local Airport Authority Board in SW Ohio and I can emphatically say the FAA has no interest in helping us go an extra mile to make the airport community friendly. Case in point is an Airport Viewing Area we would like to construct. But for over reaching ‘safety concerns’ we would have to place it so far removed the visitors would need binoculars to read a tail number.
I could cite other examples regarding monies our local county and airport owners are willing to spend to make this a more user and public friendly facility but an FAA obstacle exists at every turn.
The implication of Ben’s comments is to skip the publik and go directly to the kommisars, grease their skids directly to their re election committee.
It sure is a good thing we are not a corrupt nation, eh.
After 20 + years of floating the dumbest idea in aviation history, after all the europeans do it, paying for air traffic control from user fees instead of fuel tax … you begin to figure out it is just a shakedown. Nice bunch of planes you guys got there. Sure would be a shame if we finally tipped it over the edge … just like the europeans.
It’s hard to have the healthy lifestyle you prescribe when airplane exhaust is raining particulate pollution on our heads.
I’m going to assume this comment is sarcasm.
More likely ignorance or just dishonesty.
He ought to worry about the cars and trucks.
If he was sincere, which he isn’t.
no, it is the truth. It’s not alternative facts to note the amount of polluting particulates emitted from airplanes–especially those using leaded fuel. I do worry about cars and trucks, but they are at east using leaded fuel.
Don’t doubt my sincerity for watching out for my health.
What science do you base this opinion on? Your health is far more threatened by eating red meat or allowing N. Korea to get ICBMs and nukes than anything an aircraft presents. When you believe in things that you don’t understand you will suffer….sage words from Stevie Wonder.
The science on which I base my opinion is peer-reviewed science. Trump might ignore this, but these are not Alternative Facts.
Peer- reviewed scientific studies have shown that there is current cause for alarm to the public health of the downwind residential neighborhoods.
The February 2010 Santa Monica Airport Health Impact Assessment was an unbiased assessment by the UCLA Community Health and Advocacy Training Program and [http://www.hiaguide.org/hia/santa-monica-airport-health-impact-assessment] they summarized:
Airport operations, particularly jet take-offs and landing, are contributing to elevated levels of black carbon in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Elevated exposure to black carbon is associated with:
• increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease including asthma, bronchitis, and increased risk for sudden death
• irreversible decrease lung function in children
• increased carcinogenic risk
Elevated levels of ultrafine particles (UFP) are associated with aircraft operations and jet takeoffs and are found in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Elevated exposure to UFPs are associated with:
• increased inflammation and blockage of blood vessels in mice models
• greater lung inflammation with exposure to UFPs than exposure to larger particulates in rodent models
page1image18528
Elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Exposure to PAH has been associated with:
increased carcinogenic risk
disruption of the hormonal balance in adults
reproductive abnormalities with exposure during pregnancy
lower IQ scores in children.
Levels of noise due to plane and jet take-offs from Santa Monica Airport are above Federal Aviation Airport thresholds. Excessive noise is associated with:
hearing loss
higher levels of psychological distress
impaired reading comprehension and memory among children.
There is no buffer zone between the airport airfield and the surrounding community as observed in many other municipal airport communities.
Please review another unbiased landmark study in the Journal of Evironmental Science Technology relating to Santa Monica Airport. In this study,
“Real time air pollutant concentrations were measured downwind of Santa Monica Airport (SMO), using an electric vehicle mobile platform equipped with fast response instruments in spring and summer of 2008. An impact area of elevated ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations was observed extending beyond 660 m downwind and 250 m perpendicular to the wind on the downwind side of SMO. Aircraft operations resulted in average UFP concentrations elevated by factors of 10 and 2.5 at 100 and 660 m downwind, respectively, over background levels. The long downwind impact distance (i.e., compared to nearby freeways at the same time of day) is likely primarily due to the large volumes of aircraft emissions containing higher initial concentrations of UFP than on-road vehicles.“
“Peak UFP concentrations were reasonably correlated (r(2) = 0.62) with fuel consumption rates associated with aircraft departures, estimated from aircraft weights and acceleration rates. UFP concentrations remained elevated for extended periods associated particularly with jet departures, but also with jet taxi and idle, and operations of propeller aircraft. UFP measured downwind of SMO had a median mode of about 11 nm (electric mobility diameter), which was about half of the 22 nm median mode associated with UFP from heavy duty diesel trucks. The observation of highly elevated ultrafine particle concentrations in a large residential area downwind of this local airport has potential health implications for persons living near general aviation airports.”
Hu S, Fruin S, Kozawa K, Mara S, Winer AM, Paulson SE. Aircraft emission impacts in a neighborhood adjacent to a general aviation airport in southern California. Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Nov 1;43(21):8039-45. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19924920]
Lastly a report entitled the General Aviation Airport Air Monitoring Study: Follow-Up Monitoring Campaign At The Santa Monica Airport, Was Performed By The South Coast Air Quality Management District on April 2011.
Further emphasing the increased burden the eastern residential aspect (not Santa Monica) aspect of SMO sustained the South Coast AQMD noted “As expected, the average peak UFP and BC values increased with increasing aircraft weight, both at the East Tarmac and Ernst Residence Backyard stations, suggesting that heavier aircraft (equipped with larger and more powerful engines) emit higher amounts of combustion particles. Specifically, the average peak black carbon (BC) concentration measured for weight classes C, B and A at the East Tarmac site were about 7.6, 5.9 and 3.5 times higher than the average BC concentration observed at the same monitoring site from 09/19/10 to 09/24/10 (1.06 μg/m3) when no airport / aircraft activity was ongoing.”
South Coast Air Quality Management District. General Aviation Airport Air Monitoring Study: Follow-Up Monitoring Campaign At The Santa Monica Airport. April 2011. [http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-quality- monitoring-studies/general-aviation-study/supplemental-monitoring-campaign-at-the- santa-monica-airport.pdf] Last access August 20, 2015.
When you make blanket statements without any justification other than your own opinions, you are in the same group with Donald Trump. Peer reviewed science an only be argued with contrary peer-reviewed science. Got any?
Ron, the studies for other airports show that airports put out very little in the way of particulates. The major amount is from the cars that people use to drive to and from the airport. With a maximum of 30 movements an hours it means that there are a maximum of thirty planes landing or taking off every hour, and the emissions are minuscule from this. Break it down to emissions per acre, and consider the high density, mixed use development that will evolve there after the airport is closed and you will see that the present emissions are tiny when compared to what they will be.
What’s entertaining is that the emissions from the result of the redevelopment of the airport will way exceed anything that you’ve seen at SMO. You’ll be wishing you could turn back time.
PB, two problems with your comments.
First, re any development on the airport property, it is forbidden by Santa Monica law. So there will not be any increased air pollution from additional vehicle traffic.
As for statistics on the air pollution, Peer- reviewed scientific studies have shown that there is current cause for alarm to the public health of the downwind residential neighborhoods.
The February 2010 Santa Monica Airport Health Impact Assessment was an unbiased assessment by the UCLA Community Health and Advocacy Training Program and [http://www.hiaguide.org/hia/santa-monica-airport-health-impact-assessment] they summarized:
Airport operations, particularly jet take-offs and landing, are contributing to elevated levels of black carbon in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Elevated exposure to black carbon is associated with:
• increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease including asthma, bronchitis, and increased risk for sudden death
• irreversible decrease lung function in children
• increased carcinogenic risk
Elevated levels of ultrafine particles (UFP) are associated with aircraft operations and jet takeoffs and are found in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Elevated exposure to UFPs are associated with:
• increased inflammation and blockage of blood vessels in mice models
• greater lung inflammation with exposure to UFPs than exposure to larger particulates in rodent models
page1image18528
Elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found in the area surrounding Santa Monica Airport. Exposure to PAH has been associated with:
increased carcinogenic risk
disruption of the hormonal balance in adults
reproductive abnormalities with exposure during pregnancy
lower IQ scores in children.
Levels of noise due to plane and jet take-offs from Santa Monica Airport are above Federal Aviation Airport thresholds. Excessive noise is associated with:
hearing loss
higher levels of psychological distress
impaired reading comprehension and memory among children.
There is no buffer zone between the airport airfield and the surrounding community as observed in many other municipal airport communities.
Please review another unbiased landmark study in the Journal of Evironmental Science Technology relating to Santa Monica Airport. In this study,
“Real time air pollutant concentrations were measured downwind of Santa Monica Airport (SMO), using an electric vehicle mobile platform equipped with fast response instruments in spring and summer of 2008. An impact area of elevated ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations was observed extending beyond 660 m downwind and 250 m perpendicular to the wind on the downwind side of SMO. Aircraft operations resulted in average UFP concentrations elevated by factors of 10 and 2.5 at 100 and 660 m downwind, respectively, over background levels. The long downwind impact distance (i.e., compared to nearby freeways at the same time of day) is likely primarily due to the large volumes of aircraft emissions containing higher initial concentrations of UFP than on-road vehicles.“
“Peak UFP concentrations were reasonably correlated (r(2) = 0.62) with fuel consumption rates associated with aircraft departures, estimated from aircraft weights and acceleration rates. UFP concentrations remained elevated for extended periods associated particularly with jet departures, but also with jet taxi and idle, and operations of propeller aircraft. UFP measured downwind of SMO had a median mode of about 11 nm (electric mobility diameter), which was about half of the 22 nm median mode associated with UFP from heavy duty diesel trucks. The observation of highly elevated ultrafine particle concentrations in a large residential area downwind of this local airport has potential health implications for persons living near general aviation airports.”
Hu S, Fruin S, Kozawa K, Mara S, Winer AM, Paulson SE. Aircraft emission impacts in a neighborhood adjacent to a general aviation airport in southern California. Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Nov 1;43(21):8039-45. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19924920]
Lastly a report entitled the General Aviation Airport Air Monitoring Study: Follow-Up Monitoring Campaign At The Santa Monica Airport, Was Performed By The South Coast Air Quality Management District on April 2011.
Further emphasing the increased burden the eastern residential aspect (not Santa Monica) aspect of SMO sustained the South Coast AQMD noted “As expected, the average peak UFP and BC values increased with increasing aircraft weight, both at the East Tarmac and Ernst Residence Backyard stations, suggesting that heavier aircraft (equipped with larger and more powerful engines) emit higher amounts of combustion particles. Specifically, the average peak black carbon (BC) concentration measured for weight classes C, B and A at the East Tarmac site were about 7.6, 5.9 and 3.5 times higher than the average BC concentration observed at the same monitoring site from 09/19/10 to 09/24/10 (1.06 μg/m3) when no airport / aircraft activity was ongoing.”
South Coast Air Quality Management District. General Aviation Airport Air Monitoring Study: Follow-Up Monitoring Campaign At The Santa Monica Airport. April 2011. [http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-quality- monitoring-studies/general-aviation-study/supplemental-monitoring-campaign-at-the- santa-monica-airport.pdf] Last access August 20, 2015.
‘Nuff said?
Thanks for the concise and measured reply Ron. It’s nice to see someone post with data.
A law that restricts development at the airport can be changed in a heartbeat by any city council, and I expect that it will be changed.
What your data and studies identify is that there is emission from aircraft. My point is that it is minor when compared with what I expect will be there in twenty years from now. My assumptions are based on my participation with the El Toro effort and if we transpose just a little of that to SMO it is indicative.
The real question is what will replace the airport. I am sure that it will be a park, but with multi use residential/commercial with restaurants and theaters, similar to Hughes Airport and what is developed there now.
Promises from cities, including Santa Monica, become hollow when there is pressure for more tax income. I was around in the 1970s when Santa Monica needed money during a recession and they approved housing near the airport, because they needed the money. To proceed with trust that the city will not approve development is unrealistic.
PB,
While a future city council can abrogate the “consent” decree, the land use for the airport property was passed by a referendum. Therefore it would take another public vote to change this.
Ron, I’m not trying to be argumentative, so forgive my weak recollection of the referendum. I thought that it was advisory. I don’t remember the referendum forcing the result into binding law.
Can you verify, if you can find the status?
Measure LC was passed in 2014 to prevent development. It’s unlikely this will ever be overturned in future elections as it passed overwhelmingly.
Whitepaper from the city has no scientific bases nor proof that an aircraft harms anyone in or near Santa Monica.
Santa Monica is near the ocean and does not suffer from inversion effects further into the valley as well.
But, if there were such proof then certainly the airport to shut down would be LAX, correct? LAX has 600,000 takeoffs/landings per year (1 plane each 55 seconds) to 70,000 per year for SMO.
okay GBigs, You know more than the scientists who did the studies. I suppose you think climate change is a hoax also?
Ha! You shouldn’t have asked : ) This will bring on a hailstorm of ‘scientific’ “evidence”.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared
NIPIAS airports are supposedly of “national” importance. The “National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems” (NPIAS) identifies nearly 3,400 existing and proposed airports that are significant to national air transportation and thus eligible to receive Federal grants. Ben, you are a smart guy. You know as well as I do that very seldom will local interests look beyond their immediate profit seeking. Want to build a freeway? Well, imagine doing THAT without lots of Federal help (and participation in the ‘local decisions’. What about a pipeline? Why do you suppose the current POTUS reversed his predecessor’s decision? Energy ‘independence’ only works if we can get the raw materials to the refineries. I think what we’ve seen with the KSMO decision is just an example of how times have changed, the list of NPIAS airports has not. At least ONE contract tower can now go away without a bruising battle. The FAA Administrator just pruned an unneeded airport from the system and closed an unneeded tower. Absent a lot of noise to close an airport or shutter an ATC facility, it’s really tough for the Feds to stand up to Senator Snort or Representative Rube since ‘free money’ is a great way to keep the faithful voting ’em back in office. Democracy is messy. So is the process of managing the hogs at the trough.
Well said…I’ve dealt with government on a daily basis with my consulting business for 35 years and I’m finally retired and damn glad to be away from those demogods. Government is all about power and money, not necessarily in that order.
Obama has been out of office for less than a month and all the GOPers are suddenly much more respectful of FAA and much more understanding of municipalities closing down airports for “business” reasons.
Actually, this was a last ” gift ” to aviation from a barrack hussain obama apparatchik. Who by the way had little to do, if anything with aviation prior to becoming chief. But he did go to law school and therefore was indoctrinated to a way of thinking where first the right answer is determined, then they have a lot of books and emply novel new reasoning to develop a ” truth ” where no other less clever smuck could see before.
What Meigs Field taught these turkey’s is you can stick it to general aviation with impunity. I am actually surprised Santa Monica never brought in the dozers.
Dear Ben,
What you, and so many others, still can not believe is, this has devolved to nothing but a quest for power. After awhile you may not be so naive, but then again, maybe not.
And if ANYONE wants to fight this, it can be called a new regulation. And as we all know, no longer valid.
But people like Ben, well, fo back to sleep my friend.
” I am actually surprised Santa Monica never brought in the dozers.”, So am I. I thought it would have been plowed-up long ago.
If the Santa Monica municipal officials had to deal with some of the Obama-hating T-Par-T types writing here it’s no wonder they’re getting rid of the airport.
Who says the GOP is okay with ANY government agency (the Const is clear, govt is to PROTECT people, not hurt them)? We conservatives do not want airports destroyed or 100LL to go away. We conservatives like fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The culture war is down to Trump and California now. How that turns out will dictate whether how California thinks is how the USA goes, or how Trump/Conservatives think is how the USA goes.