I wanted to address this comment, about sprucing up SMO:

If we are serious about saving KSMO, there are some important things that should be addressed. First, the neighborhood around it has gentrified into $1m houses in one of the most liberal cities in the US. However, most of the airport property is quite literally a blight.

Any building done at SMO must be approved by the Santa Monica Airport Commission and City Council. The "ramshackle hangars" that you refer to are owned by the city. The city has refused to allow ANY redevelopment to happen at SMO unless it is taking airport land and turned into non-aviation land. A few years ago an entire tie down area was redeveloped into a soccer field and dog park.

I don't disagree with your statement, but it is the Santa Monica City Council that is preventing the airport from being improved, not the actual users of the airport. By keeping the airport looking rundown and "a blight" as you say they City Council is just making it that much easier to enact their plan of removing the airport and redeveloping it into condo's and strip malls. Because we really need more of that in California.

tmark,
Good to see that document, and it certainly provides exactly what I was referring to - a way to prevent development! However, in its current form it doesn't look to this amateur like it's enough, because the land would go back to the Federal Government - but NOT to the FAA.

PDF page 6 of the document says that if the City stops operating the facility as an airport, the "party of the first part" has the option to take the land back after 60 days. Looking at the first page of the document, the "party of the first part" is the United States of America acting by and through the War Assets Administration, which of course no longer exists. The successor to the WAA is not the FAA, but the General Services Administration.

Which brings us to the City's lobbying strategy in Washington DC. All it has to do is get the GSA - which cares not a whit for promoting aviation - to agree to turn over the land to the city in perpetuity if the land should cease to operate as an airport - and then stop operating the airport.

The GA Caucus in DC might want to put something in a bill somewhere clarifying that, if the issue arises, the United States must exercise the option and then turn the land over to the FAA for the purpose of securing an operator who will operate it as an airport...

I visit L.A. yearly. I watch planes approach from my daughter's balcony. Some are warbirds, especially in mid-May, when Planes of Fame holds their fabulous annual air show. I almost never fail to at least drive by SMO, to see what's there. This year I have to hit the newly opened museum, and try the Spitfire Grill. The airport is a piece of history, and, as noted, homes were built around it, many to house the many who worked there, or military housed nearby during WWII. Aside from money, it adds immensely interest and life to the area. But, then, I suppose, with that (private) FAA ticket in my wallet, I am prejudiced.

I'm looking at the above mentioned paper on jet emissions at KSMO as I write (Hu et al., 2009, Aircraft Emission Impacts in a Neighborhood Adjacent to a General Aviation Airport in Southern California. Environmental Science and Technology 43, pg. 8039–8045) and there's little question that the authors identified big jets as the source of the peak ultrafine particulate (UFP) bursts. For example, it reads in part "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". That said, the same research group in the same year published a study looking at UFP's (and other gunk) adjacent the I-10 in Santa Monica (Hu et al., 2009, A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours. Atmospheric Environment 43, 2541-2549) and found elevated and sustained levels within a couple hundred years of the freeway during the day and all the way to KSMO before sunrise. What hasn't been ascertained yet is the relative health risks of living within, say, 200 yards of I-10 or 600 yards of the threshold of KSMO's runway 21. Even if the relative risks are co-equal, there are many hundreds of times more people living adjacent I-10 than runway 21. Which would you begin to address first? That said, who thinks it's a good idea to permit aircraft approaching a 5000' runway in an urban area at speeds up to 190 mph?

For another point of view on the 250 degree heading issue, have a look at http://paythepiper.info/wordpress/

I live about 1000 NM north of Santa Monica and do not have a personal stake in the long term survival of Santa Monica airport. Only the most foolish, self-absorbed opponents of this airport could ignore its unique and storied history. But there are always going to be people who oppose for the sake of opposing, or want to get their names in the paper, or think contrails are a government conspiracy. You cannot reason with people who are by nature unreasonable.

Airports must continue to be relevant today and in the future, not just the past. If I were a resident who lived near the departure end of a runway where loud jets flew often, I would be constantly reminded of my opposition to the airport every time the dishes rattled in my cupboards. Perhaps a ban on turbojets or turbofans might be a compromise all sides could get their heads around. The classic argument is that anyone who chooses to live near an airport cannot reasonably complain about the noise. But jet aircraft noise is a real problem. All the sell jobs on the airport's worth mean little when you can't spend a peaceful evening in your home. Aircraft pollution is somewhat less problematic: the small amount of aircraft emissions from leaded fuels are a pittance compared to the millions of automobiles using leaded fuels in the past.

The continued survival of any airport depends upon support from pilots and aviation business, but more importantly from the community at large. Local support is like a bank: "deposits" are made in the form of sensitivity to and cooperation with the community's local interest groups. When the airport needs to grow and/or build new infrastructure, they can count on the community support they've nurtured—the"withdrawal". Have the proponents of this airport reached out to their community, to avert this opposition?

Besides being places to land and takeoff or run a business, airports are valuable as significant generators of economic activity to their community. It seems irresponsible to me that any public official in Santa Monica could ignore that fact. But local officials are the minor leagues of politics aren't they?

Despite all the positive aspects of this airport, it would be prudent for aircraft owners and businesses located at Santa Monica airport to begin looking for hangars and office space at other airports in Southern California.

Douglas M
Surrey, BC Canada

I too obtained my private certificate as well as instrument rating at SMO, and housed by Bonanza there for years. It's like a second home for me. As for the people who chose to buy their primary homes adjacent to, or nearby, the airport, I can only say, "you knew what you were buying, you made the choice so either move or live with us in harmony." SMO was here first, and with a little bit of luck, will be here long after you're gone... towcub's idea to have SMO declared an historical landmark is brilliant and should be followed up. Regrettably, Barry has moved to Camarillo, but frequents SMO on a regular basis and I would think that he would be a great person to help lead the charge...

I based my plane out of SMO for many years, and earned my Instrument rating there. Wonderful airport; intimidating, but fun. Even then, in the mid 90's the airport was under constant attack from various factions in the city council and an aggressive minority of neighbors. But McWebb says it right: the south side of the field really does look like a dump. The airport management should pick a few historic hangars to spruce up, bulldoze the rest, and get rid of the ramshackle FBO buildings.

One aspect of SMO that noone has mentioned, which must be a big lobby, is that a huge portion of the LA corporate jet traffic flies in and out of SMO. Certainly all the Westside studio execs prefer SMO. They can be in the office in 20 min on Pico, vs. a hour siting on the 405 if they go to VNY.

Not to mention that SMO is where the President flies into! Air Force One lands at LAX, and then the Pres gets a nice Marine helicopter to shuttle him over to SMO to shmooze with the hotshots in Malibu and Beverly Hills.

I will use exact words "Many limitations have been applied to the airport to minimize its effect on the neighborhood. A few examples are departure curfews, alternate departure routes and maximum noise levels that essentially prohibit certain aircraft from using the airport. Get over it, complainers! Let the airport stay, and continue its good work in employing people and serving the community’s aviation needs." Isn't a wonderful thing being able to post ignorant ranting of an obvious jet pilot who does not live in a home surrounding the SMO? Tell me this; even if you tout your slogans, the airport was here first. I was not intended for jet aircraft that currently fly in and out of the airport, skimming treetops to hit every bit of the runway as it is to short. Yes, we did buy our homes near this airport. But as more jet aircraft use SMO studies are being taken to see side affects of the jet fumes. Larger amounts of toxic fumes from SMO jets are pouring into our communities. Why would you not what to do something to help? Why would you not want to be a part of a solution? It would only improve the quality of life for thousands of families, children that run the risk up underdeveloped lungs from the toxic fumes! Are we not all human? Minimally you as jet pilots should support the 250 heading!

I took flying lessens from SMO so I'm not just a agro neighbor who just thinks by getting the airport shut down will increase the value of my home. I don't care about the single engine plans that fly in over our heads. I enjoy watching them come in. I loved taking flying lessens from the airport. I'm not vested in having the airport shut down to the single and double engine aircraft. What I will fight to my very last breath, and it could be because I live east of the airport, are the jet aircraft!

Let me explain, you bring your family to my house, just east of the airport. Let your children/grandchildren play in my yard for as long you or they can handle the unburned jet exhaust. Your saying to your self, I don't think so. Now imagine having a 21-month-old little girl who loves to swing and play in her own yard, a yard we have paid a lot of money for. Now watch her squint and start to rub her eyes from the smell of jet fumes that ENGULF our home and yard. You’re forced into your home to close up doors and windows to keep the fumes out. Forget the noise! I'm talking about TOXIC jet fumes. Unburned fumes that smell like kerosene on your grill right after you light it. In fact try this out if you don't wish to expose your family to the toxic fumes. Take your grill, dump a full bottle of lighter fluid on your charcoal, light and get as close to the grill as you can stand. Enjoy that smell? Now do it every day, all day long. But please share this experience with your loved ones.

I don't want to hear one more story about how the airport was here first. Or how the airport is doing all it can to make it safe for it's surrounding neighbors.
It operates against current FAA regulated runway length. It's inaccurate with its readings recorded for noise exposed to the surrounding community. Equipment is not place where true, neighborhood readings would be recorded.

The people who fly their jets and charter jets from the SMO are truly selfish individuals who simply turn a blind eye or are just plain ignorant surrounding the facts. They are a part of polluting a community of families, childcare services, elementary schools, and thousands of employees surrounding it.

If it's illegal to have a person smoking in public. Then why is the SMO allowed to smoke all they want and get away with it?

NOT ANY MORE!

By moving to shut down the flight schools, the local authorities are moving toward one of two possible long-term outcomes for the airport.

One is to throw out all the small planes, but keep the jets because they are protected by more powerful interests. Thus, the nuisance cha100 hates will stay, but the harmless small planes will be gone.

By limiting activities to the big jet-serving FBOs, much of the airport property (on the west side, in particular) could be turned over to real estate development - offices and industrial activities that can live with jet noise.

The more likely end goal, however, is to shut down the airport and build thousands of houses and apartment buildings that will make billions for real estate developers who contribute to political campaign funds, and whose occupants will pay tens or hundreds of millions in property taxes annually.

No matter how much we love SMO, it's hard for an airport to compete with that.

Sadly, once it's gone, there will be just one airport (at least, that I can think of) in western Los Angeles: Hawthorne, a small airport not far north of Long Beach, not nearly big enough for the overflow from SMO. EMT is far, far to the east. Long Beach is more promising, but it's a goodly drive. Whiteman is small, and full. And VNY is headed in the same direction as SMO. As someone who loves to fly, I have no interest in living in a city with no light aviation access - but I'm one of a very tiny fraction of the population.

SMO needs two things: to take property development permanently off the table somehow; and to do something to garner community support. It's way behind on both counts, and the forces pushing for its closure can smell blood in the water. I doubt it will survive much longer.

For those of you who would like to assist in reaching out responsibly and eagerly to all in the local, regional and national communities, come join us: the Friends of Santa Monica Airport ("FOSMO") www.fosmo.org.

We welcome your positive and creative thoughts and assistance.

Natalie, your comments are so loaded with bias it's difficult to know if one can have a rational discussion with you based upon facts. I will try.

You state:
"SMO with jets is a nuisance plain and simple. if you want to save that airport, as pilots, you should urge 1) the adoption of the 250 header"

The 250 departure, which was protested loudly by the community (>3,000 complaints), is for piston planes only. The purpose of the 250 departure is to allow piston planes to depart IFR (that is under Instrument Flight Rules) from Santa Monica without having to wait for a "window" from LAX where they will not interfere with jet traffic. The reason for this is piston powered aircraft fly about 5 times slower than jets. Therefore LAX must wait for a window in their operations where they will not have a traffic conflict (this is defined as two planes coming within 3 miles of one another) with departing jet traffic. No jets from SMO have ever been instructed by the control tower to fly the 250 departure. The reason for this jets are fast enough to "fit into the system" without having to leave a large "window" for their departure. The 250 departure has nothing to do with jets.
Those being said, most, if not all pilots support the 250 departure. It gets us up and on our way much faster than waiting for a direct to the shoreline departure. The people fighting the FAA against the implementation of the 250 departure are the residents surrounding the airport and the Santa Monica City Council.

2)" Jet airplanes still use lead fumes"
This is absolutely not true. Jet aircraft burn a fuel called "Jet A" and it has no lead. If you do not believe me you can look it up on the internet, or at your local library if you don't trust the internet as a source.

3)"If SMO wanted to continue to grow then they should have purchased all the surrounding land. "
This comment doesn't make any sense as SMO is owned by the city of Santa Monica. It was the city that decided to stop the growth of the airport in 50's when they refused to let the Douglas Aircraft Company increase the length of the runway beyond the current 5,000 feet. Douglas then moved his operation to Long Beach and the city sold off the surrounding land to developers. There is no "SMO" organization that exists to buy the land.

5) "The house were built concurrently with the airport to support the staff of Hughes Aircraft."
I humbly suggest that is you who should check "the record". The airport was first used as an airport in 1919. Douglas Aircraft (not Hughes) was based there through World War II. During World War II (some 20 years after the official designation of this as an airport) there were still no homes built any where near the airport. Again, if you don't believe me you can look this up on the internet, or at your local library.

6)"they can't continue to poison their neighbors anymore than any of us as individuals could indulge in a practice that poisoned our neighbors no matter who was there longer. "
This is really a passionate statement with absolutely no basis in actual facts. There has been one report done about pollution east of Santa Monica Airport. That report states that they do not know the source of said pollution. Do you have any idea what comes out of the tail pipe of your car? Do you have any idea how many fine particulates are released from the vulcanized rubber in your tires and your asbestos breaks when you drive? Literally tens of millions of cars sit grid locked in Santa Monica for hours on end, idling away and spewing toxins from the tail pipe. I don't understand how anyone can turn a blind eye to this fact and point their finger 0.004% the number of aircraft and say "There! There is the source! It's those airplanes that are killing us!".

7)"SMO was the general aviation airport that most of you are waxing sentimental about then the community would not be opposing it."
Do you honestly believe this to be true? I wish it were, but I don't think it is.

Please, I implore all people on all sides of this debate; drop the rhetoric and passionate statements with no basis in fact. It does nothing to move the conversation forward and only puts up barriers to actual real dialog.

I must respond to "Cha100" for I can only assume that I'm the "asshole above who doesn't understand the 250 heading". Mr, Cha100, how brave of you to make your comments behind a pseudoname. Your comments are so loaded with disrespect I figure it's almost pointless to engage a discussion with you. That being said, I'd be more than happy to come to your house and have a BBQ, and I'll bring both my children, my nieces and nephews and all my relatives. You are not dying because of "toxic jet fumes". This is clear hyperbole. Based upon your comments here I'd prefer you didn't actually attend the BBQ, just provide the location and the food. We'll enjoy your hospitality without you as I'm sure we wouldn't have much to in common to talk about.

I'm a pilot who flies out of Santa Monica Airport. I understand the 250 heading much better than you. I suggest you research it, as no jet has ever been instructed to take the 250 heading. No jet leaving Santa Monica has to wait for 40 minutes to get a clearance from LAX. Jet's do sit idle on the runway, but it is not because they are waiting for an LAX clearance. The #1 reason jets sit idle on the runway is because of the Santa Monica City Council. Let me explain, no development can be done at the airport without the approval of the Santa Monica City Council. Atlantic Aviation, where the large jets park, would like to install outlets to allow the jets plug into so they can run their avionics and environmental systems while they are on the ground waiting for passengers and doing pre-flight work. However the Santa Monica City Council has repeatedly refused this request. So the effect of that is that these jets have to run their engines (actually it's the APU, but it also runs on Jet A) in order to power these components. This is why jets sit idle for 30/40/60 minutes. The only reason you see this happening is because the Santa Monica City Council would rather let the jets burn jet fuel while sitting idle on the ground than have the appearance of supporting the airport and allow any kind of development to happen there.

Did you know that a jet cannot start their engines until they have been given a takeoff clearance from LAX? If there is going to be a hold, the tower at Santa Monica will tell the jets to hold off on engine start. No jet waits for more than 10 minutes on a VFR day to depart once they've started their jets. You mentioned IFR in your tirade, but I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. When I say VFR I mean a day where the cloud ceiling is greater than 1,500 feet and visibility is 3 miles.

You are obviously completely ignorant about what actually happens at Santa Monica Airport and LAX, have no clue about the actual operation of an aircraft into or out of the airport. Before you go running off at the mouth again and make yourself look like an ignorant buffoon I highly recommend you do a modest amount of research so you can engage in a constructive conversation.

Although not a resident - I live in New Zealand - I've had association with Santa Monica for a good number of years, even before marrying a former S.M. resident, with whom I visit every year, and am appalled at the suggestion that SMO might be forced to close by the Luddites that surround it and now also aspire to inhabit the City Council.

I had a letter published in the SMDP, but was roundly criticised and told to mind my own business, as I didn't live there full time, sadly that is true, but I'm entitled to my opinion,

On this years' visit I purchased a bumper sticker from the museum, proclaiming " I LOVE the noise of aeroplanes". I chose not to display it on my car at the time - lest I got a brick through my window - but I proudly display it now, and have had many requests to bring back more sticker next year !

Best of luck to FOSMO, I hope you win.