Noise Code and Enforcement Safety Implications Joseph Schmitz

Noise Code and Enforcement Safety Implications Joseph Schmitz

Underlying SMO Noise Code Purpose 9 th Circuit Court 1981: Santa Monica can fine or sanction aircraft operators for noise louder than 95 d. B to mitigate resident’s noise impacts. Court rational: needed to protect City from residents’ lawful claims against: • “Fifth Amendment ‘takings’ of private property resulting from unreasonable airport use with respect to neighboring lands. ” Greggs v. Allegheny Co, 1962

Resulted from City Charter Change (MM) ■ Passed by City Council after considering staff recommendations ■ Cumulative fines and sanctions, but (staff reports) – No mention of suspension or exclusion – No timeframe window for cumulative violation ■ Not enforceable as written – Voters and residents pacified by toughest Noise Code anywhere – Staff cannot enforce it ■ Cannot report all infractions to the Airport Commission or public 3

Noise Code Text ■ All violations shall be remediable. ■ Each violation: Attributed to all parties of the owning entity e. g. “each pilot, aircraft owner, and operator. ” ■ Sanctions shall be progressive and locally enforced. ■ ■ ■ Warning $2, 000 fine $5, 000 fine $10, 000 fine Suspension* Exclusion* * Requires hearing by a local judge which may be appealed 4

Noise Code Violation Patterns 2001 -2017 ■ 95+% of takeoffs are on Runway 21 ■ 90+% of noise violations are jets ■ 98% of jet violations happen during takeoff ■ Noise Code violations decreased rapidly after Noise Code implementation in 2001 – Then gradually were cut to one-third by 2014 ■ But violations increased since 2015 5

Many Noise Events –Not Reported ■ 2001 -2017 Noise Events raw data – Not Noise Violations ■ Dataset acquired under CA Public Records Act – Many people helped me find and gather data including the Transparency Project – Dataset stripped of any staff comments ■ Roughly 3, 450 noise events – Net. Jets events are illustrative 6

Net. Jet Noise Events ■ Not treated as Noise Code requires ■ Staff could not assess fines and penalties consistent with the present Noise Code 7

8

Net. Jets ■ If enforced using code as written, Net. Jets would have paid million(s) in fines ■ Point is not to fine Net. Jets – it’s to stop the noise burden on surrounding people 9

Code Noise Events and Safety ■ How to “ring the bell” – Fly too low over the Noise Monitor – Takeoff with an unacceptable aircraft – Aircraft too heavy – Improper pilotage during takeoff – Emergency, ATC direction … 10

Code Noise Events and Safety ■ Thrust reverser emergency stops 11

Unsafe Noise Code Violations ■ Unmanned Systems (four EA 300 prop aircraft) got 5 noise warnings for 99 b. B to 95+ d. B on 2/1/2016 – Owned by Vegas Extreme Adventures LLC, AKA Sky Combat Ace – All warnings: Correct but should have raised red flags – Later discovered 3 of the 4 were used by Sky Combat Ace to fly simulated “air combat” flights – On 4/30/2016, N 330 MT crashed returning from combat demo flight – : //aviation-safety. net/wikibase/wiki. php? id=186884 12

H-25 B Arrival and Takeoff ■ Night arrival on 3, 550’ runway – 90 d. B – Aircraft not suitable for SMO landing or takeoff – ■ Day takeoff noise reading 102. 5 d. B – Flight back to Southern Mexico – Takeoff distance MTOW is 5, 400’ – Cleared Monitor 1 by ~ 100’ ■ Discussed by Airport Commission during questions after the “Noise Report” 13