Burbank Says Airport Curfew Often Violated

As part of an elaborate strategy to sway public opinion in the long-running dispute over Burbank Airport, Burbank city leaders have scheduled a news conference today to complain that aircraft have frequently violated the facility’s nighttime noise prohibition for older jet aircraft.

Gleaned from the operational logs of the airport’s governing board--the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority--the city asserts commercial and private aircraft flying in and out of Burbank failed to comply with the airport’s voluntary curfew 4,200 times between September 1995 and October 1998.

More than 80% were commercial flights, according to a prepared statement.

The news conference, however, is to be only the first step in a detailed “attack on airport authority credibility,” as described in a confidential document circulated among city officials. A copy of the memo--written by the council’s legal advisors, sources said--was obtained by The Times.

The memo also proposed an advertising campaign based on curfew violation charges and suggested news releases to announce future court actions.

The primary message of today’s conference is that commercial and private aircraft repeatedly breached a mandatory nighttime curfew imposed on older, noisier jets, classified as Stage 2 planes.

“These new figures make a mockery of the airport authority’s numerous public statements that Burbank Airport is an all-Stage 3 [quieter] airport,” said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues, in a statement prepared for release at the news conference today.

“It’s outrageous not only that this has been going on so long, but also that it has been occurring at the very time that the authority keeps insisting there are no such operations,” Kirsch said. “Unfortunately, the conclusion we must reach is that the authority cannot be trusted.”

Burbank Airport spokesman Victor Gill denied Burbank’s claims of flagrant violations of airport noise policies by older aircraft.

Airport officials said under noise rules adopted by the Burbank Airport Authority in 1981, newer, or Stage 3, private jets flying in and out of Burbank at night are not covered by the voluntary curfew. The only aircraft covered by the voluntary restrictions are commercial airliners, Gill said.

“The vast majority of airplanes flying at night are not commercial airliners,” he said.

“The real meat of the Burbank Airport curfew is the ban on Stage 2 jets, which is rigidly enforced,” Gill said. “Over 50% of all nighttime operations are by a local company that is enthusiastically supported by the city of Burbank, and that firm is Ameriflight.”

Ameriflight, which carries checks and bank documents, uses “state-of-the-art” Stage 3 Lear 35 jets as well as several propeller planes quiet enough to fly at night without violating the curfew provisions, Gill said.

Gill said in a typical month there are between 1,400 and 1,600 takeoffs and landings between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. But most of these operations do not violate the curfew because the ban does not apply to general aviation and private aircraft classified by federal aviation authorities as having quieter engines, Gill said.

About 17%--or an average of nine flights per night--are commercial airliners, which are covered by the curfew but forced to ignore it for such reasons as weather or mechanical delays, he said.

“No commercial airline flights are scheduled to take off overnight,” he said, adding, “Those that do are delayed from earlier in the evening because of a mechanical, air traffic or weather delays. And Burbank has always said, that’s OK.”

For years, the airport authority has been involved in a bitter battle with Burbank government and residents over aircraft noise.

The legal and political feud has focused on the airport authority’s bid to build a larger terminal, which anti-noise forces contend would increase ground traffic and aircraft noise.

Airport officials maintain they should comply with the urging of the Federal Aviation Administration to replace the current terminal because it does not meet modern safety requirements.

Airport officials add they have never been opposed to a curfew or other noise cap, but say federal law prevents them from acting unilaterally.

After airlines using the airport refused to accept as mandatory the current voluntary noise limits, the airport authority voted in October to initiate a so-called Part 161 study, an exhaustive and expensive federal review needed to convert the voluntary curfew into a true ban.

But Burbank, which was invited to take part in the study, reserved the right to oppose the study’s conclusions if they aid the airport authority’s plans for the new terminal.

The curfew violation figures to be released by the city today are part of the ongoing effort to sway public opinion in the quarrel.

Interest heated in August, when in advance of the November congressional elections, Rep. Howard Berman (D--Mission Hills) appeared in Burbank with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, pledging to work with local officials to bring an end to the bickering.

Since then, Garvey has expressed her reluctance to make any pronouncements on a curfew, drawing criticism from, among others, Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale).

Rogan, who gained national prominence as one of the House managers in the presidential impeachment trial, has entered the fray by inviting Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.), chairman of the powerful House Aviation Subcommittee, to meet with local officials April 8.

Not to be outdone, state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank)--rumored to be considering a run for Rogan’s seat in Congress--called for his own airport summit March 18, to be attended by state legislators, professional mediators and specialists in mediation law.

The credibility attack document expresses skepticism over the Schiff summit.

“We oppose the proposed meeting, but if he insists . . . we strongly push for the participation of the Glendale and Pasadena city councils, while discouraging the anticipated participation by ‘mediators’ and ‘legal experts,’ ” the document recommends.

As for Rogan, the document recommended making “every effort to minimize the importance of the impact of this meeting, without taking sides in the politics between Schiff and Rogan.”