By DENNY SCHNEIDER

I was dismayed by Charles Crumpley’s Comment column of Jan. 28 (“Neighbor Noise Stifling LAX”) in which he argued in favor of moving the northernmost runway at Los Angeles International Airport farther north. He said it was for safety reasons and to accommodate the new generation of bigger aircraft, but apparently he’s been fooled by the repetition of inaccurate facts.

First, let me say I am embarrassed by the conditions at LAX and have been pushing for fixing terminals, handling areas, taxiways and even runways for years. This must be done ASAP. That is why we fought for a settlement agreement two years ago that gave Los Angeles World Airports the authority to move forward with fixing LAX. I haven’t seen much done yet.

But safety and passenger convenience is a separate cry from expansion. Safety is not justification for expansion projects. Those favoring LAX expansion miss a key point that the sky above LAX remains a constraint. LAX manages 185 takeoffs and landings an hour, and that is independent of space between the runways. In 2001, prior to 9/11, when LAX was at 68 million annual passengers, we saw this constraint impacting traffic during peak hours. The limit is again approaching. To meet future needs, we will need more regional capacity than can be developed at LAX.

Incursion escalation

The measure used to gauge runway safety is the number of incursions and their severity. Until last year, the majority (80 percent) of LAX runway incursions occurred on the south complex; north runways had one or two minor events per year. LAWA funded a multiyear simulation study by NASA and then worked with the Federal Aviation Administration for a south airfield improvement project, or what’s been called SAIP.

When construction started last year, northside incursions jumped dramatically.

The primary change at the north complex was increased air traffic due to south

runway closures.

A white paper by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association notes a direct correlation of runway incursions (they called it “exponential”) between air traffic and the number of incidents. In other words, at a certain level of traffic, small increases in traffic result in many more incursions.

Proponents for moving the northernmost runway farther north foster a one-size-fits-all “cookie-cutter” approach. There are differences between the north and south complexes: The gate locations along the runways and taxiway turnoff locations are different. Also, aircraft enter the southern runways from two sides, not one.

As a result, when two-thirds of aircraft traffic was on the north, half of the incursions still occurred on the south runway complex.

A recently released federal Government Accounting Office report is frequently cited as justification for moving the northern runway. But the 82-page report contains not a single word about runway separation or centerline taxiways for the north complex. Nor will you be able to obtain any report from the FAA clearly demonstrating that this concept will solve our problems.

NASA is refusing to do a similar consequential study of the north runway complex that draws safety conclusions. Without proper foundation, moving the runway farther north is just another “experiment” to improve safety with the consequence of destroying the Westchester Business District and removing more homes. Proponents say that only In-N-Out hamburger restaurant and the Parking Spot are jeopardized, but that is simply untrue.

Newer, larger aircraft like the Airbus A380 are used as another excuse for increasing runway separation. But none of the incursions involved such aircraft, and wider runway separation would not have alleviated the 2007 incursions.

Instead, you will see in FAA and GAO reports all of the improvements that we’ve been demanding for years. Further, one air traffic controller said that wider separation might address one incursion every four or five years, at best.

There are significant safety enhancements to be done at LAX immediately. We NIMBYs have been demanding them for years, but since they are not expansionary, they keep being delayed.

Please remember: It is the local residents who have much to lose when an aircraft lands on their business or home. Please also remember that many around the airport rely on LAX for economics and jobs. We are not anti-LAX; we just want it to be a good neighbor and become the world-class facility we all deserve.

Denny Schneider is president of the Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion, a community organization that promotes expansion at outlying airports and opposes further expansion of LAX.

LETTERS

Runway Rumble

Regarding the Comment column of Jan. 28 (“Neighbor Noise Stifling LAX”) in which Charles Crumpley argued in favor of moving the northernmost runway at Los Angeles International Airport farther north:

It is disheartening to read once again that LAX is unsafe, and that the only solution is to reconfigure the north runways. However, time and again, it has been reiterated that pilot error has been the cause of the recent close call episodes at the airport, something that would not be corrected by reconfiguring the north runways. Why is this consistently ignored?

To those who beat the “LAX is unsafe” drum over and over, where are the outraged demands for adequate staffing in the control tower? This is an easy and nearly instant improvement, would cost significantly less money, and wouldn’t destroy neighborhoods and businesses.

Frankly, if LAX were as unsafe as it keeps being reported, the FAA should be sued for not shutting it down immediately.

Alexis Dolan

Mar Vista

—

I have some serious questions about the Comment column regarding LAX expansion.

Is it not true that moving the northernmost runway another 340 feet north will result in the loss of many homes and businesses in the Westchester area?

Is it not true that the close call referenced in the column was caused by pilot error instead of runway configuration?

Wouldn’t we increase the safety of LAX by correctly implementing runway lights and fully staffing the control tower?

Isn’t it foolish to put all of our eggs in the LAX basket? Wouldn’t a terrorist attack on LAX cripple the L.A. economy?

Shouldn’t we be looking at Palmdale, Ontario, Orange County, and otherlocations for solutions to this problem?

Nate Johnson

Westchester