FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 18, 2022
Contact: Ron Berinstein CFII
New Data, A New Time – Whiteman Airport Shouldn’t be Under Siege!
LOS ANGELES, CA – Whiteman Noise Study Revealed – A New Perspective – An Open Letter to Elected Officials
“Whether we are a father or a friend or a community leader, we need to make sure that we are impeccable with our words and that we constantly be mindful of what we say and always try to be loving and caring with everything that we say,” Congressman Tony Cardenas
“City Hall hits a New Low. Is this a Turning Point?” LA Times.
SCAUWG.ORG, the aviation safety website operated on behalf of the Southern California Airspace Users Working Group, is issuing this open letter to Los Angeles Council Members and to Congressman Cardenas and asks that they should no longer be moved in the direction City Council previously determined regarding Whiteman Airport.
Whiteman Air Park was established in 1946, and purchased by LA County in 1970. City zoning has allowed building residences and businesses right up to the airport boundaries. Ironically, the LA County owned airport is blamed by city closure supporters for it’s proximity to residents. Now is the time for unity, not division in Los Angeles, now is the time for real community service, for community resident support, and not community misrepresentation, or political jockeying. Now is the time to take advantage of the local airport already in place, to reap it’s obvious benefits, and to plan future enhancements that will multiply it’s value for the neighborhood.
The recent Whiteman noise study results appeared to disappoint two vocal community organizers that promote airport closure. One, who has been aided by a City Councilwoman with a real estate background, already has plans rendered for airport closure and land development. SCAUWG.ORG wonders if implementing those plans might promote future area gentrification, and as a result, force current residents from their homes.
The second closure advocate initially called for the expensive noise study to be done again after hearing that there is no real noise to hear! The result as reported: Out of over 17000 Pacoima residential units, only 335 (less than 2%) are qualified for noise relief services under the part 150 process.
Additionally, the railroad noise from the tracks that closely parallel Whiteman’s runway, and train whistles (both appear much louder than the aircraft) were not requested to be evaluated, and neither was a study evaluating noise resulting from busy San Fernando Road which parallels the runway. Nor were any noise restrictions upon rail and road traffic requested at the recent Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting when the noise study results were announced, but a nighttime curfew was proposed by closure advocates for the airport, who were dismayed when the consulting firm expert revealed data that indicated only a voluntary curfew might be feasible.
Now those who may be biased against the airport whilst purporting to represent the local residents have a possibly uncomfortable choice to make. They can either support pursuing the Part 150 soundproofing for those units located very close to the airport that experience a sound level a little over the acceptable 65 Db, or they can choose to not pursue the relief, pursue closing the airport, and leave the current residents subjected to the noise that the anti-airport advocates have complained about for years, as Whiteman cannot be closed any time soon due to the County’s previous acceptance of Federal Airport Improvement Grants.
Closure advocates may be disappointed on the pollution front as well! Not only are aircraft LESSOR POLLUTERS than San Fernando Rd Diesel trucks right now (EPA 2007- citing more lead is located near freeways than at KWHP), a fact not accented by those who refer to that report, but GAMI 100 Octane UNLEADED fuel (Just FAA approved) is being looked into for KWHP. That fuel would replace the 100 Low Lead fuel currently in place, hence, it is possible that within a reasonable time period there may be no lead argument at all that those who claim pollution can advocate.
Finally, airport operators do not cause accidents. Think of a car low on gas with the driver knowing that there is a gas station a few blocks ahead. The driver continues toward the gas station, but the car runs out of fuel and slows. The car then gets hit by a vehicle following behind it. Does anyone conclude that the gas station should be closed? However, that is essentially the argument critics point to who accuse Whiteman Airport as a threat instead of a refuge, because a pilot experiencing mechanical difficulties in 2020, tried to reach Whiteman Airport, but failed to do so.
To our elected officials: SCAUWG.ORG is hopeful that you will be able to review your positions regarding Whiteman. Include Pacoima and Whiteman Airport in the healing process, and work together, not for personal interest, but for community interest.
The “privileged few” (those closure advocates criticize for having an aircraft at KWHP) are really those that live within easy airport access and take advantage of the community perks the airport offers. EAA Chapter 40 even invites area youth to help build an airplane that they will fly when completed! They offer free flying for youth monthly as well! The EAA Young Eagles program has flown over 9000 free flights at Whiteman.
These examples do not even begin to touch upon the KWHP Air Explorers program, Glendale Community College’s aviation program, the local jobs, aviation training and the GA flight community, the search and rescue facilities, the firefighting headquarters, the police activity facilitated, the public press helicopter support, the financial benefit for area businesses, plus the monthly free aviation safety programs sponsored by the FAA Safety FAASTeam, and more.
To find out more about aviation safety and airspace education, you are invited to join us at www.scauwg.org
To listen to the recent noise study report, you can access it at https://www.reenvisionwhitemanairport.com/resources