3,500 SMO RUNWAY. Issues and Questions. May 2, Airport Commission Member

Transcription

1 3,500 SMO RUNWAY Issues and Questions May 2, 2017 Joe Schmitz Airport Commission Member Graphics: Andrew Wilder 1

2 COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: FOUR QUESTION AREAS 1. What primary FAA airport design directive(s) did you use for Options A & B? 2. How would you characterize the benefits that Options A & B provide using the following criteria: Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) Speed, size, & weight of aircraft able to use SMO with each option Overrun and undershoot hazards to residents Fine particulate exposure to the surrounding communities; and Excessive noise: ~ 85 db 3. Why not submit a single proposal that commits both the City and FAA to: (1) shorten the runway and (2) replace excess asphalt/concrete with compacted earth? Does/can the City obtain a legally binding guarantee from the FAA that after Phase 1 shortening that both parties agree to Phase 2 runway end removal? 4. When did the City initiate an environmental review? 2

3 SMO Today: Non-compliant With Present FAA Safety Rules Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) = 4,973 NO RSAs: Expressly non-compliant since 2012! FAA, NBAA, and local advocates have claimed safety is not compromised Used by 60,000+ lb. Gulfstream IV, etc., but the 60,000 lb. limit is unenforceable 3

4 What would SMO look like now if it complied with FAA safety rules? SMO should have looked like this after RSA: 100 Jet blast asphalt; 200 Compacted Earth FAA safety requirements that neither the FAA, nor the NBAA, or local advocates deemed necessary 4

5 The Consent Agreement: 3,500 SMO Runway Exceeds all FAA safety requirements Excess runway (asphalt/concrete) removed Compacted earth provides added overrun and undershoot protection 5

6 3,500 SMO Option B Takeoff distance available: Runway + Stopway = 4,236 Scant (takeoff) difference from an FAA compliant SMO Excess Runway + Stopway = larger, faster aircraft Gulfstream 60,000 lbs. can still takeoff from SMO 6

7 3,500 SMO Option A Takeoff distance available: Runway + Stopway = 4,535 Excess Runway + Stopway accommodates heavier, faster aircraft Longer takeoff distance available than an FAA compliant SMO Gulfstream 60,000+ lbs. can takeoff from SMO 7

8 Do I have this right? DESIGN TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE LENGTH (TODA) FAA COMPLIANT? Current SMO 4,973 No! Compliant SMO 4,473 Yes Plan A 4,535 Yes Plan B 4,236 Yes Consent Agreement 3,600 Yes 8

9 Environmental Assessment Has the contract been let for the environmental assessment (CEQA) to remove the excess runway from the shorter SMO runway? Preliminary work can be done now consider closing SMO several nights if necessary Given the high stakes If not; why not? 9

10 Two Phase Project Requirements: Fulfilling the City Council Promise Phase 1: Reconfigure (paint and procedures) the centered Option B 3,500 SMO Do not permit aircraft to use the decommissioned runway ends Monitor compliance with cameras, frangible barriers, etc. Relocate the Noise Monitors and enforce the Noise Code Phase 2: Remove runway concrete/asphalt at the runway ends Environmental assessment (CEQA) initiated now! Complete with requisite speed 3,500 runway shortening: A two-part integrated package! The compacted earth provides ~ 450 safety margins exceeding those required by the FAA Given the Western Parcel loss for 12 years (a 2,800 runway forgone), we must limit both takeoff and landing runway available to 3,500 Fulfills the City Council pledge to obtain Local Control to the maximum extent possible under the Consent Decree! 10

11 COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: FOUR QUESTION AREAS 1. What primary FAA airport design directive(s) did you use for Options A & B? 2. How would you characterize the benefits that Options A & B provide using the following criteria: Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) Speed, size, & weight of aircraft able to use SMO with each option Overrun and undershoot hazards to residents Fine particulate exposure to the surrounding communities; and Excessive noise: ~ 85 db 3. Why not submit a single proposal that commits both the City and FAA to: (1) shorten the runway and (2) replace excess asphalt/concrete with compacted earth? Does/can the City obtain a legally binding guarantee from the FAA that after Phase 1 shortening that both parties agree to Phase 2 runway end removal? 4. When did the City initiate an environmental review? 11