Plane Crash Prompts Trip to Washington
Santa Monica city officials will visit the Federal Aviation Administration to review flight school leases at Santa Monica Airport.
Photos
Monday afternoon's plane crash in Santa Monica has prompted city officials to renew efforts to re-examine flight schools at Santa Monica Airport, according to a staff memo released late Friday.
Santa Monica city staff will go to Washington, D.C., to meet with Federal Aviation Administration officials, review flight school leases and meet with flight school operators.
Around 2:30 p.m. on Monday, a single-engine Cessna flown by a student pilot traveling across the country crashed into a home near 21st and Navy streets during an attempt to land at SMO.
No one died in the crash, but the pilot suffered a broken leg, and a painter who was working on the house also sustained injuries. According to a memo, a second worker was also injured and no one was in the house at the time of the crash.
According to the memo, the pilot had rented a plane from one of the SMO flight schools. The accident is the first one known to have involved a student pilot directly associated with an SMO flight school.
"This terrible near-tragic plane crash has generated many inquires about increased regulation of flight schools at SMO," Public Works Director Martin Pastucha and Kate Vernez, assistant to City Manager Rod Gould wrote in the memo that Pastucha sent to Santa Monica Mayor Richard Bloom and the Santa Monica City Council. They also noted that in the wake of the accident members of the Santa Monica community have requested that the city review flight school activity at SMO.
Mar Vista and Venice residents have long decried the flight school operations at the airport, well before Monday's crash, and in the aftermath.
Regarding the plans to meet with FAA officials, review flight school leases and meet with flight school operators, Pastucha and Vernez noted that flight schools have been "a prescribed activity" per the 1984 Settlement Agreement with the FAA.
"The city alone cannot restrict flight school operations outside of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Federal Air Regulations or provisions of their respective lease agreements," they wrote.
In reviewing the flight school leases, city staff plan "to ascertain what flexibility we have in relation to their operations."
As for the meeting with the flight school operators, city staff will "discuss strategies to lessen their impact on the community."
In addition to those efforts, a special meeting of the city council—during which preliminary research findings on SMO will be presented—will be held Oct. 4. Also, multiple community workshops will be staged starting in the fall through April 2012.
City staff will then begin a final planning process in the lead-up to the 2015 expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement.
"The expiration of the 1984 Agreement presents opportunities for the city to determine what is in the best interests of the city and its citizens," Pastucha and Vernez wrote.
susan stone
7:30 am on Sunday, September 4, 2011
Let's hope something comes of these meetings with FAA. The last time the city tried to ban the jets it didn't go so well. Good luck and let's hope a catastrophe doesn't occur in the meantime.
Susan
Greg Fry
8:04 pm on Sunday, September 4, 2011
Amen!! But don't count on it--the whole set-up is just an accident waiting to happen!
Airport Engineer
7:26 am on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Didn't go so well is an understatement. The City Council has wasted millions of consituents' dollars fighting what they know is a losing battle. They have lost EVERY court case they have filed, using "safety" arguments thinly disguised to get rid of jet aircraft noise. Why try to ban jets? They are far safer than single engine prop planes. Ah... but they are loud...
Jason
10:29 pm on Sunday, September 4, 2011
If you don't like living near an airport Nothing is preventing you from moving. It was here before you all moved in. You moved in full well knowing went what on in your back yard.
Greg Fry
6:49 am on Monday, September 5, 2011
So you're saying all that matters is who was there "first"? Very well--on that basis, tear down the airport and give the land back to the Tongva tribe! What really matters is that the airport represents a danger to the larger community through pollution, to the surrounding neighborhood through accidents, and to the pilots and passengers themselves through using a too-short runway! Let's close this dangerous white elephant down already!
Carl
9:46 am on Monday, September 5, 2011
I tend to agree with Jason, regarding who occupied the land even before the city annexed the property. The CAA, then the FAA made the authorization to permit the airport. Builders purposely build homes in the vicinity of the airports because the land value is cheaper there. Why, because of the low flying aircraft and noise! I am a pilot myself but I prefer to not live next to a airport, except for 3 miles. I just deal with it. Or, I would move if I felt there was substantial danger being there. Thank God they don't have commercial carriers or regular charter service at that field. Then you would have a reason to squawk. As far as pollution increases look a little closer at you barbecue grills and the motor traffic in that area.
Greg Fry
9:58 am on Monday, September 5, 2011
Again, my friend, you miss the point! I'm all for controls on auto traffic and other pollution but that doesn't justify the existence of this dangerous airfield, nor does it justify spewing huge amounts of extrmely toxic fumes from fuels that are outlawed elsewhere! There are plenty of other choices of small airports nearby--Hawthorne would love the business! Lets make this safer for everyone--you pilots included--and shut this relic down!
Jason
10:32 am on Monday, September 5, 2011
Tongava Tribe?!? Come get a real argument that's ridiculous. You puposly move to area near an airport and complain about it. Too short runway!?! Again do your homework at 4952 feet it is one of the longer runways in the LA area Ok Greg again just bring selfish about your persious Santa Monica address which you probably got at a discount because it was near an airport. What about Hawthorne? A. They do have jet traffic. B. They are a city locked airport like SMO. C . Sounds like you want to push your problems to a poorer neighborhood. For the amount of money the city makes with the airport I am sure they send 10 times that amount of tax payer money trying to shut it down over the last 3 decades. More homework for you Greg - but the week that the airport was closed the air report put out by ucla showed no significant decrease in air quality. Why don't you work on closing the 405 if you want to deal with our pollution issue. .
Greg Fry
10:48 am on Monday, September 5, 2011
Yes, the Tongva argument was facetious--but the point was that it made as much sense as the ridiculous "we were here first" argument being advanced. Again, you're ignoring the safety issues. Hawthorne is a much larger airport with NO housing in the immediate vicinity to get the full force of jet emissions which at Santa Monica airport sit at the very edge overlooking housing. How many planes taking off from Hawthorne have crashed into neighbors' houses? Besides, Hawthorne would love the business! No amount of rationalizing or spin will make up for the fact that SMO is a danger to EVERYONE and should have been closed down long ago!
As for emissions:
http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2010/01/07/news_-_features/top_stories/2sm.txt