|
By Lookout Staff
September 14 -- The
Lookout asked Ian Gregor, the
regional spokesman for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), to
answer some commonly asked questions
about the Santa Monica Airport –
from proposed runway safety enhancements
to the long-term future of the airstrip.
Following are his answers.
Q: Why is the City of Santa Monica’s
proposal to designate approximately
300 feet of safety area at each end
of the runway not an option? Would
it limit the kind of jets that fly
in?
A: The 300-foot safety areas would have an adverse
effect on jet operations. A 300-foot safety area
would take the form of actual land off the end
of the runway or the use of "declared distances,"
which would shorten the length of usable runway
by 300 feet. Neither of these approaches would
have anywhere near the benefits of an EMAS bed,
which could be installed in much less than 300
feet. (Editor’s note: EMAS is a light concrete
that helps arrest speeding aircraft, much like
a runaway truck stop. The City’s proposal
also includes this feature.)
As a result, the FAA's view is that the use of
declared distances appears to affect airport users
more than is justified by the safety benefits,
since greater benefits can be obtained from EMAS
with less impact to users.
Q: Why would the FAA set standards
of 1,000 feet of safety area at each
end of the runway for all airports
and then not abide by them at Santa
Monica Airport?
A: FAA is applying its Runway Safety Standard
at Santa Monica exactly as it does at other airports:
Design the RSA as close to standard as practicable,
and use EMAS to provide additional aircraft stopping
capability when the standard-dimension RSA is
not practicable.
FAA standards require only that the RSA be as
close to standard as "practicable."
In practice, a project is generally not considered
practicable if it would be prohibitively difficult
or costly (for example, due to terrain off the
end of the runway) or if it would have an adverse
impact on the use of the runway.
Q: Residents near the airport
claim that jets are causing dangerous
pollution levels. Could such findings,
if verified, be a basis for limiting
jet traffic at the airport?
A: Operations have never been restricted at an
airport in the U.S. for emissions. We're not sure
that aviation emissions could be separated from
the greater contribution to emissions from automobiles
in the southern California region. If the City
did propose to restrict operations for emissions,
the proposal would need to be studied and approved
under the process outlined in the Airport Noise
and Capacity Act of 1990.
Q: What happens when the current
1984 agreement between the City and
the FAA expires in 2015? Is closing
the airport in 2015 an option for
the City?
A: When an airport operator is deeded surplus
federal property for the airport (which
was the case at SMO), they commit
to operating the airport in perpetuity.
However, that's not today's issue.
Right now we're focused on what we
can do today to make real safety enhancements
to the runway ends for the benefit
of aircraft crews, passengers and
people living near the runway ends.
|
