Letter: Airport poses no significant threat

from smdp.com

Airport poses no significant threat

By Admin on November 13, 2013 in Opinion

4

Editor:

It’s high time to clear the air with regard to the so-called “Santa Monica-connected” aviation accidents people have been bandying about recently (“The saga of Santa Monica Airport,” Our Town, Nov. 12). These are a compendium of accidents and incidents occurring between 1982 and 2011, a period of 29 years, which are alleged to demonstrate that Santa Monica Airport is unsafe. Indeed, they show just the opposite.

First of all, this list includes Santa Monica-based aircraft involved in accidents occurring outside of the city and local area. What possible significance does that have? There is no Santa Monica connection with accidents occurring elsewhere, just as there is no pertinent Santa Monica connection with automobile accidents occurring in other cites and states involving cars operated by Santa Monica residents. Remember that pilot training and regulation is a federal prerogative, not a local one, and is uniform throughout the nation.

Of the 83 incidents listed, 15 occurred in the local airport area; on average, one every other year. It is a fact that no one on the ground here in Santa Monica has died in the last 95 years as a result of aviation operations at SMO. These represent a minuscule fraction of operations here and are clearly not justification to declare the airport unsafe. With regard to accidents occurring within the confines of the airport proper, that is not unusual, nor is it unexpected and it does not translate into a threat to the surrounding communities.

If anything, these numbers serve only to emphasize how safe operations at SMO really are. By comparison, for the year 2008, there were 701 traffic-related deaths and injuries on the streets of Santa Monica and there were 681 in 2010, making Santa Monica the most dangerous in California for its size. Traffic fatalities average about three per year. In 29 years that works out to about 87 deaths and about 20,000 injuries for the same interval. If the airport did, in fact, represent a threat to local residents, one could reasonably expect life insurance to cost more for nearby residents, or property values near the airport to be depressed, but this is not the case.

It would be time better spent for those people who are truly interested in risk management around Santa Monica to watch where they are going and not waste time looking up at the sky and fretting about aircraft that pose no significant threat to them.

Bill Worden

Venice, Calif.

Lawsuit filed against pilot in Santa Monica Airport crash

from scpr.org

AP | November 6th, 2013, 9:00am

Nick Ut/AP

Two cranes are set in position to lift the wrecked hangar buildings off the remains of a crashed jet plane, before investigators try to retrieve remains and the jet's cockpit voice recorder at the airport in Santa Monica, Calif., on Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. A lawsuit against the estate of the pilot, who died in the crash, has been filed on behalf of the family of one of the passengers who were killed.

0 Comments

Add your comments

The family of a woman killed when a private jet crashed into a hangar at Santa Monica Airport in September has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the pilot who also died in the accident.

KCBS-TV reports the suit was filed Tuesday on behalf of Kyla Dupont's three sons. The suit claims pilot Mark Benjamin negligently maintained, controlled and landed the twin-engine Cessna which crashed Sept. 29, killing all four people aboard.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

A preliminary investigative report by the National Transportation Safety Board provides no indication of why the aircraft crashed.

Santa Monica officials sued the Federal Aviation Administration last month to gain control of the city's embattled airport, which local groups want to turn into a park.

City Hall Sues FAA Over Future of Santa Monica Airport

from surfsantamonica.com

		Harding, Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP
By Jason Islas Staff Writer November 1, 2013 -- City Hall announced Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish local control over the future of Santa Monica’s controversial airport. Santa Monica has petitioned federal courts to declared that the City has full title to the 227-acre parcel on which the airport sits and, therefore, the FAA’s claim that the City is required to operate the land as an airport for “in perpetuity” is unconstitutional. “The bottom line is we need to be in control of the airport’s future,” Mayor Pam O’Connor told The Lookout Thursday. “We think we have a good case.” Much of that case hinges on the fact that, in 1984 the City agreed to operate the land as an airport until at least 2015 in order to settle a dispute with the FAA over whether the City could cap airplane operations at the airport. With the end of that agreement approaching, City Hall feels that it is in a strong position to assert its right to take control -- and possibly close -- the airport. In preparation of the upcoming end of the 1984 agreement, the City held a three-year visioning process which officials said was the largest in the city’s history. The decision to sue the FAA came after the Council reviewed the report last spring and directed staff to try to reach a voluntary agreement with the federal agency. ("Council Raises Landing Fees, Explores Partial Closure of Santa Monica Airport," May 2) But the FAA has reasserted its claim that the City can’t ever close the airport because of legal obligations imbedded in property transfers that occurred just after World War Two. "We met in Washington many times, and conveyed community concerns and proposed possibilities for changes, including operational changes, that could significantly reduce many of the Airport’s adverse impacts,” City Manager Rod Gould said in an official statement released Thursday. “The FAA representatives were polite and respectful. But, they were simply unwilling or unable to agree to any changes that could bring significant relief to Airport neighbors,” he said. The airport has its share of detractors, including several neighborhood groups that have sprouted up over the years to oppose to what they see as a dangerous -- and unhealthy -- use of land in their backyard. “We are excited that the City is taking the step to confirm its rights to determine the future of the airport land, which it has owned for almost a century, during most of which time it has benefited only a few Santa Monicans,” former Lookout columnist Frank Gruber said on behalf of Airport2Park.org. As a co-founder of Airport2Park.org, Gruber and his allies have advocated for the airport’s closure and for the land to be converted into a massive park. Airport2Park.org is not alone. Marty Rubin, founder of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution (CRAAP), lives in the Los Angeles neighborhood just south of the airport. He applauded the City’s decision to sue the FAA. “If this lawsuit will get us the results we need quickly then we applaud the City for taking this action,” he told The Lookout Thursday. That’s a big “if,” however, since the FAA has proven a formidable opponent in the past. Most recently, in 2008, the FAA successfully blocked City Hall’s attempt to ban jets at the airport. ("City Prepares to Respond to FAA," June, 2008) If the City loses this lawsuit, it will be back to the drawing board, said City Manager Rod Gould. O’Connor said that it is possible that the City could lose but that she’s confident. “Can the federal government say ‘for all eternity’” Santa Monica has to operate that airport? she asked rhetorically. She doubted that was likely. This time, the City might also expect to have some powerful allies in its corner for the upcoming fight. Recently, senior Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman has added his voice to the chorus calling for the FAA to at least sit down with residents to discuss the airport’s post-2015 future. ("Congressman Wants FAA Forum on Santa Monica Airport's Future," July 18) But the FAA has refused Waxman’s invitation. To help shore up its case, the City will be working with the international law firm, Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), which boasts more than 1,000 attorneys, according to City Hall. “This is the first step,” said O’Connor. “We’ll see what its outcome is.”