The Truth About the "Petition to reduce Torrance Airport impacts"

Signatures are being solicited for a petition to the City of Torrance demanding changes that would damage the Torrance Airport--an irreplaceable transportation, education, recreation and disaster response asset for the entire South Bay. It is based on many misunderstandings of the law and false assumptions. Before you sign it, please read the following comments about the statements made in the petition. Statements made in the petition are shown in bold italics:

"Whereas a large increase in training operations from the airport has brought noise to levels now intolerable for many residents;"

Some important facts:

• Torrance airport is a regional transportation facility. As such, the number of operations at the airport will fluctuate with demand for those services.
• Current Torrance Airport operations are at only 40% of the levels in 1976 (439,146 per year) and have generally decreased since that year, reaching a low of 109,790 in 2017.
• Flight schools all over the world are responding to the world-wide shortage of pilots which continues to cause airlines to cancel flights and reduce schedules. Training a commercial airline pilot takes thousands of flight hours, years of study for the ratings required, and multiple check flights, tests and examinations.
• These schools are operating according to FAA regulations and are providing a great opportunity for many young men and women to start careers as commercial pilots.
• Only about two aircraft per week exceed the Torrance Airport noise limits. All others are flying legally.

"Whereas residents are also concerned about air pollution from aircraft using leaded fuel and safety of low training flights over densely populated neighborhoods;"

They may be concerned, BUT:

• There is no proof that lead in aviation fuel causes any problems around our airport.
• FAA regulations specify what fuel can be used for specific aircraft.
• Unleaded aviation fuel has been approved by the FAA for most aircraft.
• Sling Pilot Academy, which accounts for over half of the flights, already uses UNLEADED auto fuel in their aircraft.
• Flight altitudes are specified by FAA regulations. Suspected violations should be reported to the FAA.

"Whereas these problems are also hurting residential property values;"

This claim is not supported by facts:

• The airport started operating in 1943--long before any of these houses were built.
• Property values fluctuate due to many factors unrelated to airport operations.
• No one has documented a reduced tax bill or sales figures showing a sale at less than purchase price to show that airport operations are causing a decrease in property values.
• Residential property owners in California are required to disclose to prospective buyers that the property is in the vicinity of an airport; buyers are required to verity that they are aware of the airport's proximity.

"Whereas the City owns the airport but, due to a change in federal law, the City no longer has the authority to adopt new airport noise abatement laws;"

Federal law regarding implementation of new or modified noise abatement procedures has not changed in many, many years.

• The City has recently learned that it has failed to comply with federal law since 1958.
• The FAA has a procedure to impose or modify noise abatement procedures (14 CFR Part 150).
• This procedure requires studies and data to support the proposed change.
• The FAA can provide grants to airport operators that fund these studies.
• Any proposed changes must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory and have no adverse effect on safety.

"Whereas, based only on a verbal opinion from the FAA, City staff stopped enforcing its longstanding, grandfathered early-left-turn law which sanctions pilots who take off and turn left over residential neighborhoods on higher ground south of the airport;"

None of the above statement is true:

• In 1958, Congress created the FAA and gave it EXCLUSIVE authority to regulate aviation in the United States. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U S Constitution and the Preemption Doctrine (which follows from it), states and municipalities have NO authority to regulate aircraft in flight.
• In 1978, the United States sued the City of Blue Ash in Federal Court over its attempt to regulate aircraft in flight from its airport for noise abatement purposes. The City of Blue Ash lost the case and also lost the appeal in 1980.
• The myth that the left turn prohibition was "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) was based on misinterpretation of a VERBAL comment made by a local FAA safety engineer. The City has no documents that support this myth.
• ANCA was passed in 1990 and deals only with Stage 2 and 3 turbine-powered aircraft weighing over 12,500 lbs.
• In 2020, the Chief Counsel of the FAA issued a letter recounting the above and noting that Torrance, like the City of Blue Ash, has never had authority to regulate aircraft in flight at its airport. That letter was shared with the Torrance City Council, Airport Commission and City Attorney in 2020.
• On 8/9/2022, the FAA issued a WRITTEN confirmation TO THE CITY OF TORRANCE reiterating previous statements and court cases.

"Whereas the City's noise monitors will not resolve negative impacts from training operations;"

This was predictable.

• The new monitoring system was "sold" based on the City using it to regulate aircraft in flight, but the City has no authority to do so.
• Before the old system was shuttered, there were only TWO NOISE VIOLATIONS on average PER WEEK at a cost of nearly $1,000 PER DAY!
• If aircraft do not exceed the TMC noise level limits, they are operating legally and subject only to Federal Aviation Regulations.

Noise from airport operations cannot be eliminated, but it can be minimized. Torrance Airport Association, Torrance flight schools and Torrance pilots are working continuously to accomplish this goal.

"Therefore, the undersigned residents of Torrance and adjacent cities, petition the Mayor and City Council to:

• Hire outside counsel with expertise in aviation law to identify and evaluate options that may still be available to reduce the airport's environmental impacts (e.g., charge landing fees, close south runway, resume enforcing early-left-turn law, prohibit sale of leaded fuel, etc.) and to defend the City against any legal challenges;
• Pay the City's legal expenses from the City's Airport Fund, not from general taxpayers; and
• Hold public hearings to discuss and consider all legally available options."

This petition exhorts the City Council to waste a lot of money we don't have. The petition ignores the fact that knowlegable teams are already working on pursuing legal ways to reduce noise from airport operations.

• Spending money on lawyers to chase unlikely outcomes and risking a suit by the United States is not a great strategy.
• The City Council has already looked at landing fees and decided not to follow Santa Monica's approach to destroy the airport;
• The FAA likely will not permit closing any runways for noise abatement without a Part 150 study;
• Municipal laws like the TMC "no left turn" law have been ruled invalid and unenforceable in Federal Court;
• The FAA has approved the use of unleaded aviation fuel in nearly all aircraft engines as of 1 September 2022.
• The Airport Fund contributes millions of dollars every year to the General Fund. Any money wasted on this plan to hire lawyers will actually reduce that contribution to the General Fund.
• Any member of the public already has the option to present their "legal options" to the Airport Commission and City Council.