KSMO, a Kalifornia airport

I don't think historical factors should rank too highly on decisions to keep airports open. Otherwise, the Hughes strip in Marina Del Rey would still be there...

The conversation should be a frank discussion over community benefits vs community costs. The discussion gets hard because the benefits tend to be skewed towards the upper class while the costs tend to be skewed towards the lower class (that condo on 2 mile final sure was cheap!) Some governments have that conversation better than others.
The history of the airport and how long it has been there is to show that virtually everyone who lives around or near it, chose to move in the area of the airport after it was already there. What did they think that living near an airport meant? They chose to live there. Santa Monica is a decent size city with a lot of other choices.

The complaints go back to the 60's with some residents claiming that the "jet noise" was affecting their property values. Then followed a jet curfew, ban on helicopter flying, noise/decibel limits, bans on night, weekend and holiday touch and goes, low approaches and more. The 70's was full of controversy over the airport as well. The city threatened closure again in the 80's and told all lease holders that they would be out in a year. More law suits on both sides ensued.

The lawsuits have continued to this day. No matter what the airport does, no matter the compliance, no matter the restrictions imposed and complied with, it is never enough and will never be enough until the airport is closed. It's a 60 year battle with no resolution that will ever appease some of the residents. The city has spent/wasted a fortune over the years on study after study and it's never enough. It's closure or nothing for these morons. Now, a large group has formed demanding that the almost 100 year old airport be turned into a damn park.

They have raised the fees yet again this year, threatened everyone who has a business at the airport, bullied those who keep or rent aircraft there and more. The city also wants to shorten the damn runway by some 2k feet. Now they have come up with the type of aircraft that can even be flown at the airport. It's never going to end until they succeed in closing the entire airport down. That is their only goal. There are no negotiations, restrictions, rules or whatever which will ever appease them.
 
Last edited:
The Avianti gets lots of noise complaints, but isn't really any louder than any other PT6 powered craft. In fact, coming in at 81.x dB, it's actually quieter than most. Problem is the interaction between the 5-blade pushers and the exhaust flow. Makes for a very "disturbing" noise. I believe the Avanti's signature is in F minor key which is emotionally associated with depression and death. Funeral dirges are generally F minor.

In any case, before I hear any more yammering from the anti-airport folks who routinely use aircraft noise as a proxy for their envy-induced hatred of aviation, I want every Harley rider issued a noise citation. You just gotta love the cubical warrior who shows up at an airport meeting to make noise complaints, then turns around and obsequiously chats up the hog rider. Most Harleys are in the high 90 dB range, with many well into the 100s. Aviation stage 3 maxes out at 89 dB. dB is a logarithmic scale which means that the power output of 80dB is an order of magnitude less than 90dB, and 90dB an order of magnitude less than 100dB !!

But more important, the aviation community is trying hard to make inherently noisy aircraft quieter, while the Harley community is trying hard intentionally to make easily-silenced motorcycles as loud as possible. No wonder we elect 3rd graders to congress.

I'll buy it. Either way it's an obnoxious airplane to be around. I'd almost rather hang out while the Metroliner jockeys are doing their thing--that's how obnoxious I think the P180 is.

And I agree with you on the Harleys. I'm anti-noise, period, I don't really care who's making it (either someone who is stuck in third grade riding a big Harley, or someone who is stuck in the third grade flying his toy jet fighter). I don't fly particularly quiet airplanes, but I do fly them as quietly as I can. Incidentally, my family also owns the only set of sound suppressors ever made for the Beech Twin Bonanza.

If you think SMO is crazy, you should talk to the Europeans. "Use of reverse thrust not authorized except for safety or landing performance reasons."
 
Good thing the Meteor is on the list. Only one in the registry and Kermit owns it.
 
Good thing the Meteor is on the list. Only one in the registry and Kermit owns it.

The history of the airport and how long it has been there is to show that virtually everyone who lives around or near it, chose to move in the area of the airport after it was already there.
...

It's never going to end until they succeed in closing the entire airport down. That is their only goal. There are no negotiations, restrictions, rules or whatever which will ever appease them.

To me, its frustraiting that "win at all costs" and "he who shouts loudest, wins" have dominated every public sector debate recently. There are some legitimate noise and growth concerns that folks have (there's also plenty of silly complaints). There is also a tremendous benefit to business aviation that I feel isn't being sold well. To me, the debate for an airport isn't about "airport vs park," its explaining why having an airport is better than tearing it up for a condo project.
 
The Avianti gets lots of noise complaints, but isn't really any louder than any other PT6 powered craft. In fact, coming in at 81.x dB, it's actually quieter than most. Problem is the interaction between the 5-blade pushers and the exhaust flow. Makes for a very "disturbing" noise. I believe the Avanti's signature is in F minor key which is emotionally associated with depression and death. Funeral dirges are generally F minor.

Yeah I think it`s mostly the "type" of noise, I grew up near where they get tested and it was really the most annoying aircraft noise out there (no cool factor for sure). However they say it`s pretty quiet inside.
 
To me, its frustraiting that "win at all costs" and "he who shouts loudest, wins" have dominated every public sector debate recently. There are some legitimate noise and growth concerns that folks have (there's also plenty of silly complaints). There is also a tremendous benefit to business aviation that I feel isn't being sold well. To me, the debate for an airport isn't about "airport vs park," its explaining why having an airport is better than tearing it up for a condo project.

This has already been done/gone through dozens of times already. The city and a group of vocal residents do not give a crap. It's get rid of the airport or nothing.

Not to mention that there are already thirty (30) parks in SM with plans already underway, to build more. How many parks does one city need? The miles of beach and it's miles of parkway and the 30 (soon to be more parks, numerous bike lanes and miles of walking paths are not enough apparently. Now they want the entire airport (there is already a bike path, a walking path and park next to it) torn down and a park built there. They (the City and it's residents) are willing to sue the FAA (yet again) over this issue. There have already been a plethora of studies examining the benefits financially and in other ways to Santa Monica. The residents apparently do not care.


The economic value/impact of the airport has already been studied and written about for years and years already.

From the latest report this year:

"The annual operation of the Airport Campus includes 177 different aviation and non-aviation businesses spread across 42 different industry sectors,” city staff stated citing an HR&A Advisors, Inc. study.
City staff further added that SMO supports 1,487 total full-time and part-time jobs in the city, including 894 located directly at the Airport Campus.

“This means the Airport Campus ranks among the city’s top 10 employers, equivalent in scale to the number of jobs at RAND Corporation,” city staff stated.

SMO annually has a “total annual economic output impact of $275.2 million in the city’s economy,” of which $187.5 million derives directly from the airport and another $87.7 million via “indirect” or “induced” output.

Putting the $187.5 million is perspective, city staff pointed out that economic impact “is equivalent to the direct economic output generated by 1,855 average-price hotel rooms, or 1.2 million square feet of general retail, or 350,000 square feet of commercial office space.”

The HR&A study concluded the $87.7 million of indirect or induced output has a ripple effect – or “multiplier effect” – in the City’s economy beyond the aviation industry.

For example, the study said a restaurant responsible for 16 jobs would “produce 20 total jobs and $1.6 million in total annual economic output,” the report concluded.

Further, the contributions to Santa Monica and the surrounding region include its positive impacts on the local economy, serving a strategic asset for emergency preparedness, providing a “vital link in the regional transportation system,” and facilitating a thriving arts and cultural community.

Accordingly, the HR&A study concluded 16 jobs in the transportation sector would produce “a total of 29 jobs and $6.7 million in annual economic output.”

“On average, every job in the city’s economy that is supported by operation of the Airport generates $185,000 in annual economic output in the City economy,” city staff said. “Beyond the city’s borders, the Airport Campus also supports a wide range of economic activity in the surrounding West Los Angeles sub region, including transportation of transplant materials for the UCLA Medical Center, operation of the largest citrus grower in the State of California, … and it provides a critical role in emergency preparedness.”

According to a fiscal impact analysis by HR&A, the Airport Campus as a whole “produced about $5.0 million in total revenues” for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, with portions of that revenue deriving from leases, rentals, landing fees, fuel sales, tie-down charges, interest earnings, and various taxes.

The fiscal impact analysis further pointed out that for FY 2010-2011, “salaries, supplies and other general expenses, capital costs, and the cost of services provided by other City departments were nearly equal to total revenues.”

The city comeback?? Whining about what it has cost the city in all their demands and lawsuits over the decades.


"Santa Monica’s Airport has been the subject of many legal disputes between the City and Airport users, Airport neighbors, or Airport businesses, (and the FAA),” city staff said.
“The most recent example is the eight year legal battle (in federal court) over the City’s Aircraft Conformance Program and the corresponding ordinance banning Category C & D aircraft. This dispute cost the City well over $1,000,000 and the C & D ban was struck down.”

And the Feds response: "As published in that federal court decision, Category C and D aircraft, whose approach speeds are 121 knots or greater at maximum landing weight, “make up approximately seven percent of all operations at SMO, (and) are almost exclusively business and executive jets.”

The other 93 percent are Category A and B aircraft, or planes with approach speeds of less than 121 knots at maximum landing weight.

The federal court also stated SMO “functions as a reliever airport for the Los Angeles International Airport” and “serves an important role in the regional and national system of air transportation and air commerce.”

Further, the circuit court ruled closure of SMO would place greater pressure on nearby airports, a pressure those facilities are not equipped to handle.

“It has a vital and critical role in its function as a general aviation reliever for the primary airports in the area. As a reliever facility the Airport attracts and provides services to general aviation thereby diverting aircraft away from the air carrier airports and other heavily used airports in the Greater Los Angeles Area,” circuit judges David Sentelle, Karen Henderson, and Judith Ann Wilson Rogers stated in their January 2011 decision.

“Study and analysis have confirmed this congestion and that other similar general aviation reliever airports in the area are already heavily used and do not have the ability to accept or absorb the service provided by Santa Monica Airport,” the justices continued."

The City Council is preparing to sue the Feds yet again and piss away even more money.

How do you reason with people like this? Dozens of studies are not enough for them. The Feds are not enough for them. Dozens upon dozens of limitations and restrictions are not enough for them. Economic impacts are not enough for them.

This is what the airport is dealing with....

monkey.gif
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is, loud motorcycles really really really suck to ride often, or for any kind of time. Unless you're basically only a bar hopper with the thing, I have no idea why you'd want a loud motorcycle. The fatigue from the noise is considerable, enough that if I wear earplugs on a long ride I feel so so much better.
People with obnoxiously loud motorcycles own garage queens.
LOUD PIPES SAVE LIVES!
 
I busted the sensors at John Wayne in the 182. And it was way over 95. Hope they don't figure this out and ban me as we'llwe'll

Well the 182 and the 206 with the continental 520 engine are among the loudest reciprocating pistons out there. I fly at a very busy airport with mostly bush 206s, I need to wear plugs when walking around, can`t take it.
 
If you think SMO is crazy, you should talk to the Europeans. "Use of reverse thrust not authorized except for safety or landing performance reasons."

Well, I think in this case they are not as crazy over in Europe. When flying there I have never heard anybody complaining about aircraft noise, be against air shows and so on. The big problem are holding patterns, since Europe is made of so many countries and lots of airports are on the borders there are huge disputes on holding/approach areas, so people mostly complain because they are getting the noise from an airport that's not even within their country. In Switzerland most airports get military traffic so there would be no reason to complain bout the smaller guys, in general if you don`t like the noise you just don`t move next to an airport, and we don`t play golf. The only noise restriction I`m aware off is due to the morning practice of a local circus, no I`m not joking, in this case you are not allowed to overfly that specific area. As far as reverse thrust, that's pretty common in most parts of the world.

Well, there is one crazy country: Germany, never seen so many 4 blade props..
 
Well the 182 and the 206 with the continental 520 engine are among the loudest reciprocating pistons out there. I fly at a very busy airport with mostly bush 206s, I need to wear plugs when walking around, can`t take it.

I hate the sound of supersonic prop tips. There's a prop control lever for a reason fellas...
 
I say let them close it down. The impact of loosing one of it's. Top 10 employers might just give them a big black eye. "You made your bed, NOW LAY IN IT!" Hopefully, if they succeed in closing it, taxes on all the rich yuppies around the airport will drive their home prices even lower than a little jet noise.

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time. All the nails are there, they just need to be hammered in.
 
This is the same city full of morons who have banned group yoga, pilates and workout groups from their precious parks. Build parks that are limited as to use can use them and keep building more of them which generate no revenue. But then this is the city that banned smoking in your own yard, patio or balcony. lol Oh, and if you cannot prove that your dog is a resident of Santa Monica when using a dog park there, you will be fined hundreds of dollars. There is no common sense left in that city and hasn't been for years now.
 
Last edited:
The last Hansa Jet I'm aware of that flew in the US was the one that goofball that owned Grand Aire got himself killed in a few years back... Too bad another pilot perished with him.
Yep. That happened at my home airport, KSUS in 2004 or 2005. The plane had been sitting for years, they jumped right in and took off. Right after takeoff, dual engine failure.

I heard there was still one flying in Turkey or something, but that was several years ago.
 
Yep. That happened at my home airport, KSUS in 2004 or 2005. The plane had been sitting for years, they jumped right in and took off. Right after takeoff, dual engine failure.
Might be thinking of a different crash...this one had been sitting for months, but was on a ferry permit home and the trim was reverse rigged during maintenance in St. Louis. MX crew verified trim wheel moved the correct direction but didn't check for stabilizer motion. Crashed on departure. If I remember reading it right, neither pilot was current in the plane and the FO has zero training in the jet.
 
My sister own a house directly under the path of 4/22 at SAT. The city of San Antonio paid to have her windows, doors, and roof sound proofed because of noise. Even though nearly all operators routinely use 12R Southwest will regularly use 4/22 since it saves 10 seconds. However my sister never once attended the lawsuit meetings or marched along wetmore rd griping about the evil Canyon blue jets. She bought that house knowing where it was and had already lived in the neighborhood for years. I put most of the origin of these problems with places like SAT and SMO with idiotic city planners. They consistently zone light residential right off of runway corridors instead of some light commercial or in the typical case around dfw industrial areas. Many times the areas will lie vacant for decades as reasonable people wouldn't build a house there until you get the developer that just doesn't care and buys it up since it will be cheap land (previously undesirable for housing) and build houses there anyways.

Here is a home right off the west end of SMO runway for 2.5M built in 2008. They want to relax in their concrete lined prison cell of a backyard patio without those evil Piaggios. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1777-Sunset-Ave-Santa-Monica-CA-90405/20481305_zpid/

This home built in 1950 is just a few hundred feet on the other side of the blast fence from the runway. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12145-Clarkson-Rd-Los-Angeles-CA-90064/20463099_zpid/ the house across the street built in 1961. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12146-Clarkson-Rd-Los-Angeles-CA-90064/20463100_zpid/

Much in like the San Antonio lawsuit many said the underlying problem was projections of traffic and traffic types. What could these residents expect to fly over their home in 1950 on a regular basis, WWII vets flying cessnas or Gulfstreams? According to this 1952 aerial I'd say a lot of big ass planes.
 
LOUD PIPES SAVE LIVES!


That should be our argument to the anti-airport, airports-are-unsafe crowd. "Well, you see folks, the sound will give you a chance to identify the airplane and to get out of the way before it crashes into your house..."

Loud noises are offense to the ears; Good drivers save lives.
 
Back
Top