本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出
Back to Squawk list
  • 6

Rep. Waxman says FAA Ignoring Safety Issues at Santa Monica Airport

提交時間:
 
Today Rep. Henry A. Waxman sent a letter to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Michael P. Huerta to request immediate action to address safety conditions at Santa Monica Airport, following a deadly crash earlier this week at the airport. The FAA has consistently failed to address past concerns about inadequate measures to ensure the safety of the Santa Monica community, pilots, and passengers. Rep. Waxman wrote, “The people of Santa Monica – and especially those living next to… (www.yovenice.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 5
Why is the chairman of Airport Authority and city of Santa Monica complaining to FAA about the safety of their own airport?

They should make the airport as safe as they want. They are not lacking for resources. The wealthy people living near the airport and using the airport with their private jets don't mind paying for safety. Go ahead.

Once they create a plan, they can run it by the FAA, and build it. It would be foolish to wait for bureaucrats, when they can and should take care of their own safety.

If you build it, they will come.
TorstenHoff
The airport commission's goal is to close the airport. They have no interest in improving the safety, any mishap regardless plays into their hands and is exploited as much as possible. The chairman of the commission complains about the proximity of the homes to the location where the accident occurred, which is of course on airport property. The solution they and the owners of the homes propose is to get rid of the airport. That's like someone moving next to a cannery and then complaining about the smell.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Throw out the baby with the bathwater. What will be interesting is to hear the outcry from the plane owners when they succeed in getting in closed, and I say when rather than if because it will happen as evidenced by others across the country. Question is where will they build a replacement.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
They wouldn't be able find another larger piece of land anywhere near as close as KSMO. Either they won't close it, or it won't be replaced with another new airport.

Maybe the jets might move over to Van Nuys, if KSMO is no longer available. But with LA's notorious traffic jams, being close to your air strip is quite valuable. It can take longer to get through traffic than to fly to Silicon Valley, Reno, Vegas, Vail, Utah, Idaho and most of the more common non-transcontinental destinations.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, FA shows a total of 267 AC based there to include 6 jets and 7 choppers. Surely there is a voice in there somewhere. There are many airports in the country that the town has just grown up around and property has become much more valuable as residential than as an airport. I guess it all comes down to who has the deepest pockets.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Land in Santa Monica is very valuable. The parcel highest and best use may no longer be an airport. But those who use the aircraft based there would strongly disagree.

The neighbors migt be disappointed if a mall or shopping center of some kind gets built on that land. Then they'll long for the good old days when all they had was an airport there.

There was an exchange between neighbors on a video of this fire to that effect. One saying they should get rid of the airport. Another cautioning that the only reason she would e concerned is that whyever they replace it with, might be worse.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Similar situation at KCWS in Conway AR last year. Jet came off and got a house. New airport is going in South of town, BUT, supported by all, especially the aviation community. Hazardous approaches. Threshold just barely past I40 on the North(although fairly clear) and town on 3 sides. City never would move until that crash. They are fortunate in having support and alternate location.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Rural AR is way different than smack down in the middle of the LA megapolis. KSMO is irreplaceable. Once it's gone, it's gone.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Conway not exactly rural but I full well understand your "irreplaceable" and am very familiar with that area. Like I said, it will depend on who has the deepest pockets.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
"6 jets"

I'm sure there are lots more than 6 jets that regularly fly in and out of KSMO.

First, many private aviation clients will schedule their pickup and/or drop off at KSMO because of convenience.

Secondly, many companies or individuals may register their planes out of state to avoid the California taxes. They can have their plane flown in and ready for them when needed. The plane need only depart 30-60 minutes earlier to account for the extra leg in, depending on where they choose to base the plane.

They might save not only on taxes, but also hangar fees, cost of maintenance, fuel cost, tax on fuel, etc.

But I'd be surprised that there weren't many more than 6 jets that have KSMO as a second home, and regularly flying there.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't disagree with you a bit but I believe I said BASED THERE, not fly in/out. That is just what FA has posted. Take it up with them
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Preacherman do did write 'based there', which is what got me to think about why so few of the planes that regularly use KSMO are actually based there.

Thanks for bringing this nugget of info to the front. Facts is the facts.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are correct in your thinking too as that same info bar on FA shows nearly double of what is based there, 451 I think
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Also forgot to mention that at other airports the flight crew can afford to live minutes from the airfield, and be ready more quickly and reliably, than having to drive through LA traffic ti get to the airfield. Also the flight crew would be able to live to a higher standard for the same paycheck, somewhere else where the cost of living is more reasonable.

In this case, the owner/pilot wanted his plane close so that he could fly away at a moments notice when he wanted to, since he would often be flying it himself. So an away base wouldn't work for him.

But many other non-pilot owners may find an away base a viable and preferential option.

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!