Taking Off on Runway Plan

* Re “Wrong Ideas Imperil Airport Plan,” Orange County Voices (March 23):

As a captain for a major airline and a former jet squadron commander at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, I must disagree with retired Marine Col. Norman Ewers on two issues regarding proposed takeoffs to the east from El Toro by commercial jet airliners.

Over a 20-year period I made hundreds of takeoffs to the east while I was based there in the Marines. Nearly all of these violated three very basic rules of flying: I took off with the wind instead of into the wind, uphill instead of downhill, and into rapidly rising terrain instead of away from it. Even though I was flying high-performance aircraft, there were times when I was barely able to get airborne. Why would I have done such a stupid thing, and worse, for so many times?

The answer is that I was ordered to. I was a Marine, and I carried out that order. However, what is important to know about the future of El Toro is that, unlike military pilots, airline pilots cannot be compelled to take unnecessary risks.

In fact, to promote safety and to protect pilots from unscrupulous airline and airport operators, aviation regulations have always given the pilot in command final authority as to the operation of an aircraft.

It has nothing to do with “pilots’ turf and pride.” It has everything to do with safety. This explains why no civilian jet transport--or even military jet transport for that matter--has ever been flown off to the east or to the north at El Toro, to my knowledge. Incidentally, the C-130 military transport that Ewers once took off in to the east is not a jet aircraft and does not have the same performance requirements as civilian airliners.

Airline captains are required by law to fly in a safe and prudent manner. No commercial pilot in his right mind is going to risk his career--let alone his own life and those of his passengers--by attempting such an inherently hazardous takeoff as proposed by El Toro’s planners.

Regarding takeoffs to the north: For what it’s worth, the only jet transport I know of that ever attempted to take off to the north did so and crashed in 1965. All aboard were killed.

Ewers notes that downwind landings at LAX after midnight rated a “black star” from the Air Line Pilots Assn. In fact it was the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Assns.--that is to say, all of the world’s airline pilots--that deplored this compromise of safety.

My own view is that it is one thing to carry out a downwind landing on an exceptionally long runway over flat terrain; it is quite another to carry out a downwind, uphill takeoff into terrain from a relatively short runway. I cannot imagine the Federal Aviation Administration or the airlines ever certifying such a procedure as safe, let alone permissible.

Ewers is correct in stating that takeoffs to the west over Irvine would be much safer. Indeed, that is how we flew fighter jets from El Toro up to 1969, when we were ordered to reverse the takeoff direction, if not the laws of physics, because of noise impacts on the new city of Irvine.

From a performance and safety standpoint, the best takeoff direction is to the south, which is the direction that virtually all jet transports have used when departing El Toro. Unfortunately, the only practical landing direction is to the north, and there’s the rub: You cannot have airplanes landing and taking off in opposite directions from the same runway at the same time. This alone dooms El Toro’s viability as a commercial airport.

For some time, both the airlines and the airline pilots have been saying that El Toro in its present runway configuration is not going to work. Maybe it’s time to listen to what they are saying.

CHARLES J. QUILTER II

Laguna Beach

* The comments by Todd Thornton and Col. Norman Ewers in the March 23 Orange County Voices column highlight the wrong runway selection in the county’s El Toro airport plan.

The proclaimed primary departure runways, 7 left and 7 right, face rising terrain. Additionally, the plan calls for a majority of takeoffs and landings from intersecting runways. Accordingly, the county’s environmental impact report has triggered opposition from the Airline Pilots Assn.

The one thing all of this rhetoric has in common is that it misses the obvious solution. A solution that is available within the existing infrastructure of the Marine Corps Air Station’s runway layout optimizes takeoff payload capability for heavily laden intercontinental airplanes.

The solution best accommodates the prevailing winds, best interfaces with air traffic flows in and out of the other major Los Angeles basin airports [and] will truly have minimal audible impact on surrounding communities.

The solution is the utilization of runways 16 left and 16 right as the primary takeoff and landing runways. Under this optimal plan, departures will turn to a course that carries them over the unpopulated San Joaquin Hills between Newport Coast and Laguna Beach. Surrounding communities, such as Irvine and Lake Forest, will have no audible perception of El Toro flight operations.

Col. Ewers is right when he states that the “federal government has presented Orange County with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to convert a community-compatible military jet base into a needed 21st century multimodal transportation center.”

Proper runway selection here not only will enhance safety, it should go a very long way toward silencing the majority of El Toro airport opponents who base their opposition on noise and safety impacts.

JIM MENDELSON

Newport Beach

* Every aircraft has unique performance characteristics. Those of civilian commercial aircraft are very different from those of military turboprops.

The fact that the Marines used runway 7 for C-130 turboprop departures is meaningless. The airport development report performance data generated by county consultants clearly indicates that most commercial aircraft will be operating at the margin when using runway 7 for departures.

In addition to issues of safety, planners should be concerned that aircraft will be restricted in weight, and therefore payload, when operating on runway 7. Restricted payloads mean restricted profits for airlines.

On the question of use of runways 6 and 7 at LAX, the problem was not with the use of those runways but rather with a lack of instrumentation. Because of pilot complaints, LAX authorities installed precision instrumentation on those runways. That is what has made use of them at night safe.

As a former military pilot and current commercial airline captain, I know that the worlds of civilian and military flying are very different. Perhaps Ewers should consider restricting his comments to the military world with which he is most familiar.

GEORGE MON

Laguna Niguel

* Once again The Times prints a South County opinion on the impracticality of El Toro international airport, rather than facts.

Such naysayers prefer to spout misinformation and hysteria rather than get on board and be part of the process. It better suits their objective of “no airport at all.”

However, assuming El Toro is built as Todd Thornton’s op-ed article [advocates], all of South County should be thrilled. If Thornton’s predictions come true, and a few planes go down, or the pilots refuse to fly, the airport would soon be closed.

That’s just what South County wants. On the other hand, does anyone really believe that such a dangerous airport would be allowed to be built after all the studies are completed? Not likely.

MICHAEL STEINER

Costa Mesa

* Regarding your March 20 editorial about the El Toro Y:

The $166-million, 26-lane improvement to the El Toro Y was done to benefit the south Orange County residents, many of whom are protesting the El Toro Airport.

If South County secedes, as the anti-airport groups threaten, will they repay the $166 million to North County taxpayers?

Just wondering.

RAY UHLER

Irvine