WHICH OFFICIALS, POLIITICIANS AND CORPORATIONS ARE USING FLYING CLOUD?
Santa Monica Airport to Ban Larger Jets that would have access to FCM with longer ruwnay.

In California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and first lady Maria Shriver prepare to leave from Santa Monica Airport on an official trip to Mexico in November 2006. The governor commutes almost daily from his Brentwood home to Sacramento using the airport near his home, Santa Monica Airport, a GA airport similar to FCM. A ban on large jets could sent him farther afield.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger loses precious access to the neighborhood Santa Monica Airport he uses to fly to Sacramento, he can thank his own brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver.

The Santa Monica City Council voted in March to ban large private jets from using its airport for fear that planes like Schwarzenegger's Gulfstream IV could crash into neighboring homes if they overshoot the 4,987-foot runway. Shriver is on the council, which voted unanimously for the prohibition.

The ban is on hold, however, after the Federal Aviation Administration obtained a temporary restraining order on Monday. A federal district judge is expected to review the matter May 15.

The Republican governor commutes almost daily from his Brentwood home, often using Santa Monica Airport when flying within California, Shriver said. Schwarzenegger and business travelers prefer Van Nuys Airport or Los Angeles International for longer trips since runways at those airports can accommodate the added weight of extra plane fuel.

For Schwarzenegger, reaching the Van Nuys Airport can mean a 14-mile drive, including a nine-mile slog on the congested I-405 freeway, compared with a trip less than half the distance on city streets to Santa Monica.

Shriver said he hasn't heard from Schwarzenegger yet, but he expects to.

"Arnold will come up with something like, 'Now I have to go all the way to Van Nuys because of Bobby and his communist friends,' " Shriver said, doing his best Schwarzenegger impression with an Austrian accent.

He said he's not sympathetic with the people who've complained to him: "You know, get in the back of your limo and make your calls."

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said he does not know whether the governor is aware of the pending ban.

"I can verify that he has used that airport and other area airports," McLear said.

The FAA contends that local governments have no authority to ban aircraft from airports. It has been negotiating with Santa Monica for several years in response to concerns about the runway's safety.

The Gulfstream IV is a category "C" plane, which has an approach speed faster than the ordinance's maximum of 139 miles per hour.

"These aircraft, category 'C' and 'D' jets, have been landing safely at that airport for years and years and years," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "The issue of safety has to do with the 4,987-foot runway, and all of these planes have performance specifications that show they can land and take off on a runway of that length."

The Santa Monica Airport has been in operation since 1917 and was surrounded by farmland until World War II, said Martin Tachiki, Santa Monica deputy city attorney. During the war, Douglas Aircraft Co. built planes there, and homes for workers sprouted up nearby. It is now surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods and on another side by a business park in the land-scarce community.

"Our airport is very tightly constrained," Tachiki said. "There are homes within 300 feet of the ends of the runway. We're concerned because we have no runway safety area. If there's an overrun, an aircraft could conceivably leave the airport boundaries and go into homes."

The growth of fractional-jet services like NetJets has enabled more people to use larger, more luxurious planes without having to buy them outright, Shriver said. In 2007, the airport had about 26 takeoffs and landings daily involving "C" and "D"-size planes, which make up about 7 percent of its traffic.

Shriver said most of the planes affected belong to business travelers, not celebrities.

The governor's plane has come under fire previously for its impact on the environment and for its $12,800 hourly cost, paid for by donors, when he goes on trade missions and campaign trips. Schwarzenegger pays for his own daily flight costs and for carbon credits that finance environmental projects to offset his emissions.

Schwarzenegger routinely flies between Santa Monica and Sacramento, about a 50-minute flight. Each hour, his Gulfstream jet emits as much as 4.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the online luxury journal Helium Report. That's roughly equivalent to what a small passenger car produces over the course of 8,000 miles.

Shriver, an environmentalist, said he thinks the Gulfstream planes have a significant emissions impact, but he is sympathetic to the governor's need to have private transportation because of his popularity.

"He's a person a lot of people wanted to talk to before he was governor," Shriver said. "The privacy concerns are significant. He's buying carbon credits … I think he's probably doing the best he can."

Shriver drew attention after the governor removed him and director Clint Eastwood from the California Park and Recreation Commission earlier this year. McLear previously said the governor only wanted to give other Californians a chance to serve, but Shriver suggested the governor was disappointed in their opposition to a toll road through San Onofre State Beach.

He said he wasn't bitter about his removal from the commission – and he said it had no impact on his decision to vote for the airport ban.

Sacramento Bee, 2008

Airport noise violations up





It’s not even spring, and in the first two months of 2008, there were 296 noise complaints at Flying Cloud Airport. Though the numbers of complaints tripled, the MAC says only 26 people are doing the complaining. There are thousands of people being impacted by the same noise, but when MAC puts the onus of voluntary noise curfews on the public, MAC really isn’t seeing the real numbers of noise disturbances. MAC won’t tell us who the repeat violators are and noise disturbances continue to rise despite a record decline in numbers of flights.
The result of increased noise will be lower home values around the airport. This will hit all impacted homeowners right in their pocketbooks. Lower home values also mean less taxes for the city, and value depressed neighborhoods. Cause and effect really do exist, but in MAC’s world, it’s convoluted by theories, multiplier effects and FAA rulings that offer a distorted picture of aviation’s impact on communities.
The voluntary noise curfew is not working; there are no repercussions to violators; so before the thermometer hits 40 degrees and (FCM) Flying Cloud Airport activity begins its busy season here are a few changes MAC should make:
* Onus of reporting on operators/MAC with a self-monitoring system, more repercussions to violators.
* MAC to disclose actual nighttime operations data to public.
* Web site data MAC provides accounts for half of the total operations at FCM. MAC doesn’t disclose that fact on its Web site; MAC needs to do so.
It’s up to our local representatives to act on our behalf to get more protection for residents against noise disturbances. E-mail local council members, legislators and MAC to find out how willing they are to go to bat for our quality of life.

Floyd Hagen
Eden Prairie

GA tax Issue stalls Senate Funding Bill

The AOPA reports that the FAA reauthorization funding is stalled in the Senate.

According to the AOPA, "there will not be an FAA funding bill this year “based on the GA community’s inability to compromise,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Feb. 28 Senate Commerce Committee hearing. “I blame it on them because we can’t work it out.”

Well, we should know all about that. It's GA's way or the Jetson Highway!!


"Rockefeller supports the $25-per-flight user fee (TAX) for turbine aircraft. He says it's necessary to pay for modernization of the air traffic control system. Rockefeller also contends that general aviation is not currently paying its fair share of the costs of operating ATC."

We agree with that!

"But his colleague on the committee, Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), disagreed. To say that general aviation killed the FAA funding bill for the year is “a bit of an unfair statement,” said Sununu. He noted that GA has supported bills that “bring us to a much more equitable and proportionate sharing of the costs” of the ATC system."

"Sununu said that he and other members of the Commerce Committee opposed the $25 user fee because it would have significant administrative costs and be difficult to oversee."

Don't believe it!

“We have a system in place for collecting revenues to support this modernization and that is an aviation fuel tax,” Sununu said. “And the proposals put in place...significantly increase fuel taxes on general aviation.” He said the Finance Committee’s tax bill (S.2345) and the House FAA funding bill (H.R.2881) accomplished the goals of raising enough money for ATC modernization and more equitably distributing costs among different classes of users without imposing user fees."

The system he is referring to is to a great extent public money, paid by public users of our public air transportation system that go into the General Fund.

"The current aviation tax system has been extended until June 30. Congress must either pass a new FAA funding bill before then or extend the status quo once again. While the House has done its part, the Senate has not passed a final bill. The Senate Finance Committee approved an aviation tax bill (S.2345) that increases jet fuel taxes 65 percent, while S. 1300, the bill from the Commerce aviation subcommittee (chaired by Rockefeller), includes the $25 user fee. Those two bills have to be reconciled before the Senate can pass a final FAA funding bill."

February 28, 2008

The Bottom line is GA is using more and more of the system, but they don't want to pay their way, they want the public to take the hit.

Speak up and tell our Senators, no public subsidies for GA....

Why is an Airport Technical Assistance Program (AirTap) having Forums called AIRPORT IMAGE MAKING??


AirTap is the acronym for the Airport Technical Assistance Program, a statewide assistance program for aviation personnel that offers education and information resources, training programs, technical assistance, access to experts, and printed materials.
Does a program exist that offers assistance to communities impacted by airports? The answer is no.

The most recent AirTap forum, evidently their fourth annual event according to their web site, was attended by 70 people from general aviation airports and community government.

The AirTap forum was sponsored by Minnesota AirTAP (housed within CTS, the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota ) and the Mn/DOT Office of Aeronautics , in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Minnesota Council of Airports. .
The topic of the latest October 2007 AirTap Forum was Airport Image Making.
For those of you who missed Laura Neuman’s Power Point presentation to the Flying Cloud Airports Commission meeting in January, it was a technical overview of methods MAC could employ to reduce noise/emissions at the relievers. The presentation provided the FCAAC with information that might help eliminate the consistent abusers of voluntary restrictions. At the previous MAC meeting, Zero Expansion was asked to include pro-active measures in their presentation. So, the organization complied. The presentation also included a link to a web simulcast on aircraft emissions that will take place Feb 13-08: You can watch it at:
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s webcast on 2/13/08 related to aircraft emissions’ impact on air quality and technologies and strategies to reduce it.
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/ConferencesWorkshops/AircraftForum/AircraftForumAnnouncement.pdf
The audience at the FCAAC meeting in Jan 08, made up mostly of pilots, Fixed-base operators (FBOs), representatives from Chamber of Commerce and other pro-airport types got to hear and see the proactive measures provided in a Power Point presentation.
The audience’s reaction to all this new information on impacts and ways to reduce them was less than cordial. It was as if they had seen and heard something so unpractical, so unscientific, that they could do nothing but react with disbelief and antagonism.
One FBO operator who spoke that evening told everyone that Zero Expansion resorts to scare tactics by using cartoon images of 747’s in their advertising. That cartoon image was used in the early days of the organization, years ago. But, the comment and others were similar to it, indicated that nothing had changed in the discourse: it’s the same general disconnect that has always been the case between the community and the users of airports.

Nevertheless, Zero Expansion’s victory is that the organization has managed, with its scant resources, and meager funds to successfully and truthfully describe the airport: noisy, intrusive and damaging to home values and quality-of-life. Ironically, though the industry paints us negative, they’re the ones still desperately trying to describe themselves....

As the picture relays the public doesn't have very much representation on this issue. Some people are resorting to the only method of control available to them.

It's a nationl problem and as jet use increases, especially, in small communities, the problem will only increase...

JAMA, Journal American Medical Association Report




FACTS: Journal of the American Medical Association
From 2002 to 2005 General Aviation represented 91% of all aviation crashes and 94%of all aviation fatalities.
Overall, 46% of general aviation crashes occur at airports.
Alcohol-impaired flying is a well-established risk factor for general aviation crashes.


The above facts and the following information come from a JAMA, Journal American Medical Association study done in April of 2007 on General Aviation and Public Safety.


General aviation accounts for the vast majority of aviation crashes and casualties. Although crash rates have decreased somewhat, the crash fatality rate of general aviation has not changed in the past 20 years. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, aviation safety efforts have centered on improving aviation security, including the security of small airports and airstrips used primarily by general aviation.


General aviation crashes are a little-recognized public safety problem even though they account for the great majority of aviation deaths. The general aviation crash fatality rate has remained at about 19% for the past 20 years while the overall airline crash fatality rate has declined from 16% from 1986 through 1995 to 6% from 1996 through 2005. The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are. In recent decades, while major airlines have improved seat strength, revised exit row configurations, and used more fire retardant materials, few improvements have been made in general aviation aircraft, in part, because federal regulations only require safety improvements for entirely new aircraft models.


Besides being a public safety concern, general aviation intersects with medicine directly in at least 2 ways. First, transporting patients from crash sites and between medical facilities is more hazardous than generally recognized, and EMS flight crew members have an occupational injury death rate that is 15 times the average for all occupations. One EMS helicopter in 3 being likely to crash during a life span of 15 years, few EMS helicopters have crash-resistant fuel systems. Second, physician pilots crash at a higher rate per flight hour than other pilots. It is possible that physicians are more likely than other pilots to buy high-performance aircraft that require more time for mastery than their schedules may allow. In addition, physicians may take risks (e.g., fly when fatigued or in bad weather) in order to meet the demands of a busy medical practice. From 1986 through 2005, a total of 816 physician and dentist pilots were involved in general aviation crashes; of them, 270 (33%) were fatally injured. Physician and dentist pilots accounted for 1.6% of all general aviation crashes and 3.0% of pilot fatalities (Carol Floyd, BS, National Transportation Safety Board, written communication, February 2, 2007).


JAMA. April 11, 2007-Vol297, No. 14

Laura Neuman making a Power Point presentation to the Flying Cloud Airports Advisory Commission

Zero Expansion's Presentation to the FCAAC on Jan 10, 2008
MAC, Pilots and Operators and Chamber of Commerce Representatives in the Audience


Airport News

The case for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport, no longer a case….

January 2008


Do you remember MAC telling us that aviation operates in cycles and every five or ten years, growth necessitates rethinking the need for more capacity? Well, most of us remember. MAC’s claim has always been that the relievers needed to deter smaller planes from landing at MSP so the hub could handle the growing numbers of flights. MAC included this in the EIS.

Well, according to a Jan 2, 2008 article in the Star Tribune, MSP takeoffs and landings have decreased every year for the last three years at MSP. The decline caused the airport to go one notch below its statewide status to 13th busiest airport in the nation.

One of the reasons for the decline is NWA. The article didn’t state why, but one would naturally assume bankruptcy and activity that doesn’t originate out of the Twin Cities’ hub, but out of NWA’s other hub airports, as reasons for decreasing numbers.

The question we need to ask MAC is why aren’t they factoring the decreasing numbers into their future plans? The expansion of the relievers was based on forecasted growth. The volatility of the industry has made future projections and projects based on projections fiscally imprudent. The expansion at Flying Cloud was based on growth that hasn’t materialized, because operations at FCM have been decreasing annually for a decade.

Who has fiscal oversight of MAC?


Never ending battle for airport land versus community development…


The other newsworthy item reported by the Star Tribune this week is the battle for land at Crystal Airport, a reliever in the community of Crystal. The city wants to develop 430 acres, but MAC has declared that Crystal, what they say is the state’s fifth busiest airport, stay open for business.

In a 12 to 3 decision, the MAC cited a yearlong study by MAC staff showing the airport’s financial viability. Sound familiar? In our case, MAC got an outside group to do the study, but they provided them with the stats. Sound unbiased?
Crystal officials want to close the airport, which sits on a 430-acre parcel near Hwy. 81. The area had been eyed for redevelopment by the city for years, much like Eden Prairie’s developable acres that were removed from our tax role when MAC bought land to expand the airport.
ReNae Bowman, Crystal’s Mayor, told the MAC commission that “she thinks personal aviation is declining nationwide and Crystal Airport is not being used to its full potential.” Can you imagine our Mayor, Councilmember Aho, John Duckstad, or Pat Mulqueeny of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, who have been pro-expansion, admitting to the fact that personal aviation is declining?
“ MAC Commissioner Robert Mars, who voted to close the airport, said he wanted to hear more from residents, business people and community leaders in Crystal because he didn't think the MAC should be limiting development and growth in the city. Déjà Vous.

Mars said, “There are airports all over, and just because 20 years ago we put an airport in Crystal doesn't mean it needs to stay there," he said after the meeting. We couldn’t have said it better. It’s what we’ve been saying for almost 20 years. The problem has always been there isn’t sufficient proof of need to spend millions of dollars just for the benefit of a few corporations. If in fact Crystal closes, there could be more operations transferring over to other airports, especially Flying Cloud. This change was not incorporated into the EIS.

Runway Safety
How Safe Are We?

Midway Crash of 2005



The Teterboro and Midway crashes of 2005 brought a serious problem to the attention of the public sector. Because airport runways often intersect with busy streets, heavily used commercial and business areas as well as neighborhoods with private homes, airport use often overlaps more and more into non-airport sectors. The insufficiencies of runway length and the close proximity to non-airport use have made airport runways and airports less safe. Thus, the surrounding community is less safe. There was a recent article in the Star Tribune about the head of Minnesota’s DOT, Carol Molnau, who lessened the safety areas around MSP, in order to allow for more commercial use closer to the airport. Two recent examples that have prompted the FAA to rewrite the safety margins and even include barrier mechanisms to stop a plane from crossing the airport barrier are the Teterboro and Midway crashes of 2005.


Santa Monica airport, a general aviation airport similar to FCM, has an ongoing dispute with the FAA over their runway safety areas, which are deficient, according to the FAA’s own standards. The FAA wants to build an arrestor bed to inhibit crashes and also buy out neighbors. Santa Monica Airport recently banned what is called, C and D aircraft from using the airport. These aircraft are larger private jets, like ones that will use FCM if the airport is expanded. They have approach speeds of 120 knots.

Santa Monica Airport (SMO) jet operations soared from 4,829 jet operations in 1994 to 18,100 in 2006. Federal standards for C and D aircraft are 1,000-foot runway safety areas, which neither Flying Cloud Airport nor SMO have. If a 5,000ft runway was installed at FCM it would have to be realigned to incorporate the new safety area measurements. Santa Monica will begin a litigation process with the FAA, which airport neighbors can use to lobby their local Congressional representatives to pass new legislation governing airports in favor of safety for nearby residents. The FAA has the legal upper hand. But, many feel the FAA never had any objectivity in promoting airport expansions in terms of safety versus access.

Right now the FAA wants to buy out Santa Monica homeowners and construct an arrestor bed. The community is opposed. The SM city council will reconvene in Jan of 2008 with their findings from a meeting in Washington in December of 2007. This is right the time for everyone living near a small airport to contact your federal representatives and tell them community safety comes before airport operations.


What’s important to understand is that these small airports, in particular, were originally constructed for non-jet, non-commercial small aircraft operations. With time these uses have been changed to mostly jet, quasi-commercial, larger aircraft operations. The original intent and use has been altered. So when we hear from the aviation community that neighborhoods have grown around the airports, we know that’s only one part of the problem.




Teterboro- Reliever Airport in the New York System 2005 Crash

Challenger CL-600, bound for Midway Airport in Chicago, skidded into a brick warehouse. The jet slid across Route 46, a line of 20 to 30 westbound vehicles was stopped by a red light. Investigators examined a trail of destruction that included 1,000 feet of skid marks, a flattened fence, a path across six lanes of Route 46, two twisted cars on the highway and others in a parking lot, a massive gouge in the warehouse wall and a mangled and burned aircraft.
NTSB officials declined to speculate on whether ice had formed on the wings in the 22-degree cold. Such icing has contributed to crashes of other CL-600s and similar models, manufactured by Bombardier of Canada.
This was a fractionally owned aircraft- The registered owner of the plane was 448 Alliance LLC of Dallas, said Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration. The aircraft was listed among the inventory operated by Darby Aviation of Sheffield, Ala., and it also was operated by Platinum Jet of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., he said.

The drama began about 7:20 a.m. The jet was hurtling northeast on Runway 6, a 6,000-foot stretch of tarmac.(Airport has two runways, 6,000 and 7,000 ft.) But the plane didn't appear to leave the ground, witnesses said, and it skidded for 1,000 feet, crossed a patch of grass, flattened a security fence and sliced into the eastbound lanes of Route 46. It continued across the highway, striking two cars, sliding across a parking lot, destroying two cars and crashing into the warehouse occupied by a clothing distributor.



Midway Airport in Chicago-2005 Crash


The NTSB said Midway airport's runways are simply too short, and the crushed concrete safety zone, the extensions on the runways, should have been in place before the crash. Midway is 65% commercial, but its longest runways does not exceed 6,500 ft.

Midway is one of almost 300 commercial airports nationwide that don't have FAA-required 1,000-foot safety zones at the end of runways to slow planes that overshoot landings. Congress has passed a law that would force all airports to comply with the FAA requirement or provide alternatives by 2015.

FCM does not have the legal 1,000 ft buffer now and a new extended 5,000 ft runway would have to be realigned to meet the new requirements for landing distance for planes weighing 60,000lbs or more. (A new FAA rule allowed these larger planes into small airports.)