A decision or even definitive direction regarding the fate of Whiteman Airport in Pacoima remains up in the air.
The campaign to shut down the airport, citing potential health and safety concerns, was propelled by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ motion calling for an economic analysis and planning study for both an airport closure and if it were to remain operational.
Supporters of the airport are making sure they are not forgotten. At a recent LA County Aviation Commission meeting at Whiteman Airport, aviation enthusiasts spoke strongly in favor of keeping the airport operational.
“I am violently opposed to closing this airport,” said David Fulkman, an aviator who has lived a mile north of the Van Nuys Airport for almost 50 years.
“If you close this airport, a lot of the aircraft will … go to the closest airport in Van Nuys. So that means you’re kicking the can from one council district to the other district.”
Tom Hendricks, who works facilitating the youth aviation programs at Whiteman, suggested that the airport “has a marketing and image” problem.
“Whiteman airport needs to make itself known as a benefit to the community, a benefit to the community’s youth,” Hendricks said.
Whiteman Airport offers two youth programs; the EEA Young Eagles program which offers free flights to youth in the area, and Operation JACKPOT, where teens build a small airplane from scratch.
“If it were, say, the ‘Pacoima Air Park’ and recognized as a benefit to the community – a center of excellence for youth training and other aviation training of both youth and adult level – the airport will be much better off,” Hendricks proposed.
The nonprofit organization Pacoima Beautiful is leading the charge to close down Whiteman with support from elected officials that include LA City Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla, Congressman Tony Cárdenas, County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and state Sen. Caroline Menjivar.
The Supervisors’ motion signed by Horvath directs the Chief Executive Office, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works, to report back in 60 days with a plan and cost estimate to conduct a study of potential land uses for the 184-acre Whiteman Airport Property.
Paul Maselbas, principle engineer of aviation for Public Works, said the preliminary analysis suggests the closure of the airport would have “a significant impact” on airport business in the county, with Whiteman Airport being “one of the few airports that actually takes in more revenue from tenant rentals than expenditures.”
He reported to the Aviation Commission that the economic analysis and study of potential uses is estimated to cost several hundred thousand dollars, and would probably take more than a year to conduct.
Where funding for the study comes from is still being disputed, but Peter Amundson, LA Aviation District 5 commissioner, raised concern about aviation funds being used to foot the bill.
“It does not seem right to use aviation funds to eliminate aviation,” said Amundson to cheers from those in attendance.
Attendee Michael Gorman argued that studies commissioned and paid for by the county are just “rationalizations for the expected outcome,” by delivering the exact results that the person who commissioned it wanted – the airport’s closure.
Rocío Hernández, district director for Rodriguez, was the only person in attendance to speak in favor of the study. Hernández described the motion as an “important step in moving towards the closure of Whiteman Airport,” adding that Rodriguez asks that the county “implement immediate mitigating measures that address the health and safety of Pacoima residents.”
Among the safety concerns are airplane crashes, of which 13 have involved aircraft that had taken off from the airport in the past decade, according to reports.
One of the main health concerns raised is the use of leaded fuel.
Menjivar recently introduced legislation to ban the sale of leaded fuel, and Whiteman Airport will begin selling unleaded fuel in June according to the Aviation Commission.
David Kolstad of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Chapter 40 and the Whiteman Airport Association, rejected the state senator’s argument.
“The LA basin is about one-tenth the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] allowable level for lead in the atmosphere,” he said. “Whiteman airport is one half of that. So it’s one-twentieth of what the EPA says is okay. I think we need to counter some of these wrong arguments that are floating out there.”
The politicians mentioned need to follow the FACTS as found by the studies already conducted by the non-partisan South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQAMD) and the LA County Dept. of Health (as ordered by the County BOS) instead of denying them, wishing they were different, and support the incredible economic and social benefits gained from Whiteman Airport.