3,500’ SMO RUNWAY

Issues and Questions

May 2, 2017

Joe Schmitz Graphics: Andrew Wilder

Airport Commission Member

Joe.schmitz@smgov.net

1

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

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

What would SMO look like now…if it complied with FAA safety rules?

■ SMO should have looked like this after 2012

– 300’ RSA: 100’ Jet blast asphalt; 200’ Compacted Earth

– FAA safety requirements that neither the FAA, nor the NBAA, or local advocates deemed necessary

4

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

3,500’ SMO Option BTakeoff distance available: Runway + Stopway = 4,236’

■ Scant (takeoff) difference from an FAA compliant SMO

■ Excess Runway + Stopway = larger, faster aircraft

■ Gulfstream IV @ 60,000 lbs. can still takeoff from SMO 6

3,500’ SMO Option ATakeoff distance available: Runway + Stopway = 4,535’

■ Excess Runway + Stopway accommodates heavier, faster aircraft

■ Longer takeoff distance available than an FAA compliant SMO

■ Gulfstream IV @ 60,000+ lbs. can takeoff from SMO

7

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

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

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

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