Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: California Flight Schools Denied Because of "Environmental impacts"??

  1. #1
    fabricfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    California Flight Schools Denied Because of "Environmental impacts"??


  2. #2
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    I doubt it has anything to do with liberalism. The city of Santa Monica has been trying to close down "their" airport for decades, and this is just one more attempt. Wouldn't want a new flight school to come in and be successful, then it would be even harder to close the airport. They've run a LOT of aviators off from that airport, unfortunately.

    And, as is often the case, the use of "Environmental" issues is simply a means to an end. They could give a hoot less about the "environment". And once again, the REAL environmentalists get a black eye.

    MTV

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Surfside SPB-Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike - You hit the nail on the head! I delivered a Beaver out there a a few years ago and wow the customer was really careful about letting that 985 Pratt making any noise yet the ramps were loaded with jets which are not the quietest birds around. Maybee they just want to let the big $$ birds be there. We did our training at other airports and made some good noise for them. I saw some amazing car & custom motorcycle collections in some of the hangers though, can you think of paying $6000 a month for a 60-60 hanger rent??

  4. #4
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Brian,

    Nope, they want the high rollers out of there also. Years ago, they ran Hilton Hotels worldwide headquarters out of SMO to Las Vegas primarily because the City kept leaning on jet operations with curfews, noise monitors, no Sunday ops, etc, etc. This has been going on since I flew there in the mid seventies. One of these days the city will get its wish, and the airport will become another shopping mall.

    MTV

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,618
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting. The FAA funds that airport, or it would be gone a long time ago. The FAA looks with jaundiced eye on folks who use airport facilities for speedboats, antique cars, and simple storage, since the airport is in theory for airplanes, and is in fact subsidized by tax money.

    It is much cheaper to store speedboats and antiques at a publicly funded airport than it is out in the real economy - they oughta throw those folks off the airport and bring the Cubs back. Opinion.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kingsburg, CA
    Posts
    1,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Santa Monica has been in the news a lot lately. It is true that the city wants to close the airport and when you go out of there in your C185 equipped with seaplane propellor or your P&W powered plane you best be unscrewing the propellor...or else you will be fined. They can't close it down though because of FAA funding. With that being said, how many people here are storing a car or boat under the wing of their airplane? I bet a lot here store a car or boat in their hangar...underneath the wing of their plane or have an end hangar that is really a hangar and a half that gives ample space to back in a boat or car. There is nothing wrong with that. The rules state that you have to have an airplane or airplane parts in your hangar and they do. I bet those guys who are storing their cars and boats down there have an airplane in their hangar too. Those rules are in place to keep the airport from turning into a straight up mini storage...

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like
    Santa Monica is done for. Its just a matter of time. Hawthorne HHR has made a nice change to attract those jet setters with a new foo foo FBO called "Millionair". Its working too. Range rovers and jets around pretty regular now. They laugh at me when i taxi by in a "funny little yellow airplane with big tires". I feel like the ugly duckling sometimes. I suppose thats what it takes to keep a small airport alive nowdays. The property is worth a mint. I guess its better than seeing another airport turn into a minimall...

  8. #8
    highroads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like
    And I thought California had an unemployment problem, you just can't believe what you see in the news anymore. These jobs will have to go somewhere they are needed.

  9. #9
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    8,341
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...-227059-1.html
    The FAA is demanding proof from the city of Santa Monica that it will be able to legally and safely provide aviation services at Santa Monica Airport now that it has evicted the FBO and flight school on the field. The agency has subpoenaed the city to provide all the relevant documentation (certificates, ratings and endorsements) of all the city employees who will allegedly be filling in for the dozens of employees at Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers, who were told on Sept. 15 they are no longer welcome there. The FAA maintains the city has to keep the airport functional until at least 2023 when obligations relating to federal funding of airport projects run out and that means fixing airplanes, selling fuel and teaching people to fly.
    The agency issued a laundry list of requirements in the subpoena, demanding that the credentials of “each and every” city employee keeping those services viable be provided to the agency.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is another thread that if the truth is told it will go to R&R. Quite a shame since the real problems behind all of this are what needs discussing. Maybe the ACLU will step up to defend the rights of the flight schools?

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,618
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like SMO, and have been landing there since before it had a tower. This seems like a legitimate discussion, and will remain so - I personally do not mind if most regard it as a liberal plot, even though a case can be made for aviation itself being semi socialist. I doubt it will go to R&R.

    I wonder why SMO doesn't just follow Meigs Field into infamy? Daley was successful by just bulldozing the runway.

    We are a hundred miles south of there, and new management is just about dying to bring in more jets and turboprops. He has said that if he had his way, the T- hangars where our Cubs are would be bulldozed tomorow, and all taxiways would be 126 feet wide.

    The LA Times has been following SMO, and last week there were six letters to the editor - four of them complained about the jets and couldn't wait to see SMO closed for that reason. I do not blame them - if continuous jets flew over my house I would be pissed. I am hoping our little aiport can remain lightplane oriented, and survive.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Farmersville, TX
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    The LA Times has been following SMO, and last week there were six letters to the editor - four of them complained about the jets and couldn't wait to see SMO closed for that reason. I do not blame them - if continuous jets flew over my house I would be pissed. I am hoping our little airport can remain lightplane oriented, and survive.
    This is what drives me crazy about these situations... People purchase a house near an airport (and I would bet money that 90+% of those people bought their houses long AFTER the SMO airport was established), knowing full well and good that they are buying a house near an airport, then complain because the airport is noisy. Didn't they check out the neighborhood before they purchased? I bet they checked the schools, the grocery stores, and commute routes. I bet they considered whether or not there were train tracks or a major freeway right behind their property. Why the heck would they not notice the airplanes continually flying overhead - especially if that noise bothers them so much?

    What ever happened to 'personal responsibility' and 'due diligence' in these situations? Mad at someone because the home you purchased is noisy? Go after the seller, who is required by law to report that to the buyer, not after the "noise source" that almost certainly pre-dates the purchase of the property... And if the airport situation WAS disclosed before purchase, you just made a dumb decision. Own up to it, and either live with the consequences, or sell to someone who can / will do so, and get on with your life.

    It's like the people near my home town who purchased houses right next door to what used to be the county landfill, with a high fence surrounding it, and signs every few feet that say "Posted - No Trespassing" and "Danger - Landfill Site" and "Danger - Methane gas exposure area" all around it... Now they are complaining about the garbage smells when the wind blows from that direction. They want the county to add another 10 feet (!) of treated earth over the top of the old site. And they want the county (meaning ME and the other county residents who were not stupid enough to build right next to the dump site) to pay for it.

    By the way, I live on 10.5 acres out in the country. It is so quiet here that when the donkey that lives almost 5 miles away from us brays, we can hear it quite clearly. And guess what? We also happen to be directly under the arrival path for airliners flying in from the NE toward both DFW and Love Field. An airliner passes overhear about every 2-3 minutes during the early morning and late afternoon, and about every 5 minutes the rest of the day. And they are flying at much lower altitudes, where you can clearly hear them pass overhead. We're also located directly under the "practice area" for several local flight schools operating out of three different local airports. When they are up there practicing stalls, spins, steep turns, etc. the "noise" is loud enough that I can run outside and watch them (and often do). But I knew all of this well before we purchased, because I made a point of visiting the property at several different times of the day. I made my decision to purchase this property knowing full well what I was getting into. Now I realize that as a pilot, the sound of those "training flights" that draws my attention are more like "music to my ears" but the point is I knew because I checked it out beforehand...

    Just drives me crazy...

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    You know I wonder if there would be so much complaining about airports (or any noise making activity) if property taxes were lowered by a large percentage based on public generated noise levels? If you live under the the approach/departure end of a runway say a 50% reduction in taxes for the closest in and varying downward the farther away you are based on average noise level. For someone older and a little hard of hearing these could become desirable properties and they sure wouldn't complain and risk losing there sheltered tax status?

  14. #14
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    This has nothing to do with noise. This has everything to do with the property UNDER that airport being worth far, far more in tax dollars if it were covered with ten or fifteen story buildings instead of asphalt.

    The noise issue is simply a means to an end....the desired end being big bucks in some developers pockets and in the coffers of the city.

    MTV

  15. #15
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    8,341
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229733-1.html

    A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the shortening of the runway at Santa Monica Airport the day before the work was to begin. As the National Business Aviation Association convenes in Las Vegas for its annual convention, the last-ditch order prevents the removal of 1,500 feet of the SMO runway, which effectively bars all but the smallest business jets from using it. Work was to start Monday morning (Oct 9, 2017). NBAA and other aviation groups have spent millions of dollars over the last three decades trying to preserve SMO as a viable business airport. The order is significant because it could lead to a injunction against ripping up the runway. The injunction is expected to be heard in about two weeks. At issue was the private deal between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica that led to the feds allowing the city to reclaim the airport property in stages until its federal obligations expire in 2028. The court ruled that it was likely the petitioners would win their case in a trial and the restraining order was issued to ensure the damage wasn’t done before they got the chance to argue the case in court.


Similar Threads

  1. Infos about the "N4971H Flight of Passage" Cub?
    By Boerries in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 08:59 PM
  2. "Flight of Passage"
    By Steve Pierce in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-31-2005, 06:55 AM
  3. Onerous regulation of flight instructors and flight schools
    By Rookie in forum Take Action Jackson
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-29-2004, 12:44 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •