Land Use Study at California Airport Raises Alarm in GA Community

The economic impact and land use study was given the green light at the county's board of supervisors meeting on October 22. The purpose of the research, according to the county, is to determine alternate uses for the airport’s 184 acres. The facility is located in the city of Pacoima, 19 miles north of Los Angeles International (KLAX). Whiteman Airport is one of five owned by Los Angeles County.

The study is to be completed by a consulting firm and will cost $1.9 million, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.

The airport has been a target for closure for many years, as some in the community argue it is no longer an asset but a threat to safety of the homes and small businesses near the facility, the Southern California Aviation United Working Group (SCAUWG) told FLYING.

The organization strongly objected to the board of supervisors giving the green light to a study to look at ways to repurpose the airport property, citing the study as a waste of taxpayer money. According to SCAUWG, documented agreements between the county and FAA assert that the property will remain an airport in perpetuity. 

The airport is located in a residential neighborhood that was built in the late 1930s and during World War II housed thousands of middle-class professionals who worked in the defense or movie industry.

The airport was built in 1946 during the post-WWII general aviation boom, when surplus aircraft were available for pennies on the dollar, encouraging many who learned to fly during the war to adopt aviation as a hobby.

As the population of the Golden State grew, so did the use of the airport. In 1973, Los Angeles County purchased 100 acres of land adjacent to the property in order to lengthen and realign the runway so the airport could be used by larger aircraft.

Today, the airport is a towered facility with Runway 12/30 measuring 4,120 by 75 feet. The traffic is an eclectic mix of public agency helicopters, flight school trainers, and corporate turboprops. The airport also boasts a business community that includes flight training, light manufacturing, and storage. 

According to Airnav.com, the airport , which sees about 82,000 operations a year, has a voluntary curfew in effect. The Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA), which opposes the airport's closure, told county officials the airport provides 412 direct jobs.

Those advocating for the airport's closure cite two accidents in their arguments that it is unsafe. 

In November 2020, a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182 crashed on approach to Runway 12.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the pilot reported a loss of engine power and was attempting to glide to the runway but ended up in a "densely populated neighborhood." The aircraft struck a power line as it came down on a city street within 50 feet of an occupied home. The pilot was killed, and the aircraft burst into flames, destroying both the plane and two parked cars.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the loss of engine power to be an improperly connected throttle control.

Another accident occurred in January 2022 when a Cessna 172 lost power shortly after takeoff.

According to the NTSB, the engine failed at an altitude of approximately 200 feet. The aircraft came down on a road, coming to rest on a railroad crossing. The pilot was pulled from the aircraft by police officers moments before a train sped through the crossing, colliding with and destroying the aircraft.

The NTSB ruled the cause of the off-airport landing to be water in the fuel, which the pilot noted during the preflight inspection. It was also noted that it had rained for 18 days prior to the accident and that the fuel cap gaskets had deteriorated.

The video of the train colliding with the aircraft went viral, and shortly afterward, local politicians from both the city council and board of supervisors called for the closure of the airport.

U.S. Representative Tony Cárdenas, who represents the city of Pacoima in Los Angeles County, called on the county and FAA to close the airport for 30 days to perform a safety audit, telling the Los Angeles Times there were "way too many crashes coming in and out of Whiteman Airport.”

The 30-day closure did not happen.

According to the FAA, it does not maintain a compressive list of airports with “perpetual obligations.”

“However, in cases where land was acquired with federal assistance under Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the federal land obligations remain in perpetuity,” the FAA said. “In cases where land was acquired with through the predecessors of AIP (i.e. the Federal Aid to Airport Program (FAAP) or Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) grants), the FAA must review the language of the grants to determine the status of the sponsor’s obligations since most FAAP land grants and some ADAP grant documents do not impose a perpetual obligation."

An FAA spokesperson said that for disposal of a specific parcel or an entire airport, the airport's obligations depend on the grant history for that particular parcel or airport.

FLYING made multiple attempts to reach the Los Angeles Department of Public Works, which oversees the airport, but calls and emails were not returned.

In June 2022 when the airport was facing threat of closure from county and city officials,

Steven Frasher, public information officer for Los Angeles County Public Works, told FLYING that, according to the FAA, "Los Angeles County, which owns Whiteman Airport, has received $4.8 million in AIP grants for Whiteman since 2006. The most recent grant was in 2021. When airport operators accept AIP grants, they agree to certain conditions. One of these conditions is to keep the airport open for at least 20 years from the date of the most recent grant."