City staff argued last week in Washington D.C. to uphold a halted-ban on faster jets at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO), which has been contested by the Federal Flight Administration. After months of preparation and years of struggle between the City and the FAA, oral arguments moved forward in front of the Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, Oct 14.
The City has been fighting since 2007 to keep Category C and D jets off the SMO runway. The City argues that the runway is too short based on the FAA’s own standards.
Attorney Erik Pilsk of the D.C.-based law firm Kaplin Kirsch Rockwell argued the appeal for Santa Monica. A Department of Justice lawyer argued for the FAA.
Despite the FAA’s own rules for building new airports, Santa Monica was grandfathered in to allow the aircrafts for the convenience of pilots, according to FAA representatives in 2008. The representative who appeared before the Santa Monica City Council stumbled when questioned to clarify his comments on whether the FAA choose public safety or pilot convenience when the aircrafts were brought to the city. Cornered, the FAA representative landed on the slippery slope toward pilot expediency.
Once the City realized that the C and D jets were outside the safety parameters for the airport, but were operating there nonetheless, the Santa Monica City Council felt it had to act on behalf of residents, said Council member Kevin McKeown in an email.
“We are up against the federal government, an uphill battle, but a victory for us on this point would be huge,” McKeown said, “as it would validate our safety concerns about an airport surrounded by neighborhoods.”
Ardent airport activist Martin Rubin, co-founder of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution, said although most responses have not been “optimistic” in regards to the appeal, he hopes that a better safety threshold will be put in place.
The FAA put an injunction following the jet ban stopping the City’s law in its tracks. Rejecting the proposal to create barriers at the ends of the runway, therefore shortening the runway, and limiting even more aircrafts, the agency instead offered short pads of soft paving at the end of the tarmac to slow most, but not all, wayward planes. Otherwise the runway could be extended into the neighborhood by knocking homes down and forcing homeowners out.
The acquisition costs alone for the 647 homes estimated by the City to reside in the runway safety area at $560 million dollars, according to a City staff report. This does not include administrative costs, relocation expenses, and legal fees. The City Council rejected both options, according to McKeown, who has been a long-time advocate of tightening restrictions at the airport.
“I’m not willing to accept that putting our residents at risk is justified by the need of a few high rollers, film executives, and the occasional Governor to make convenient jet trips from an airport designed for smaller, slower, safer planes,” McKeown said.
Rulings for the D.C. Circuit Court are rarely released before a month or two of deliberation, with the possibility of up to a six-month wait, according to City council in Washington.
