Test Flights Will Help in Decision

Since 1993, the debate over a commercial airport at El Toro has had one crucial element in the abstract. While there were many sidewalk experts, nobody could say with certainty what it would be like to have airplanes taking off and landing once the Marine base closed. The case for the series of test flights that will take place Friday and Saturday lies in whatever sense of reality might result from having the experience.

These tests probably will not move anybody out of the hardened positions pro or con that have developed during the long debate over the airport. One can argue whether the tests are too expensive. Certainly, it would have been better for them to operate on the round-the-clock schedule.

And yet, precisely because so many positions are firm, anything that lends a dose of real-life experience to the discussion is bound to have some value. It would be worthwhile for residents and businesses in the takeoff areas to the east and north, and the landing areas to the south, to review the landing schedules. They ought to observe what happens, and to listen.

In the meantime, the tests draw renewed attention to unresolved questions over takeoff and landing routes. The county has long maintained that its preferred flight plans are safe and usable. Concern about noise for residents to the east and the safety of takeoffs to the north are factors in the equation.

The Air Line Pilots Assn. and the Allied Pilots Assn., two unions representing commercial air pilots, have opposed the takeoff routes because of worries about safety. They have argued for takeoffs to the west, which runs directly against the Board of Supervisors 1996 resolution banning takeoffs from existing runways over Irvine.

The Irvine factor is crucial, because any merit that may lie in the city’s fierce airport opposition turns in large measure on this question: In the end, will a promise for no westerly takeoffs be honored at the end of the airport planning and construction process?

There has been substantial turnover on the board since it endorsed an airport and authorized planning to go forward, with restrictions to protect surrounding residents and communities. So the question of good faith and keeping promises remains on the table.

The supervisors on the current board should say where they stand on this issue. It would be worthwhile for the public to know how serious the board is before the board approves the airport. Meanwhile, test flights are a point on the road toward clarifying whether the flight plan will fly.