12/01/2024  Please check for updates:

 

Quick Note:

KTOA has been under a series of challenges that have originated from the City of Torrance that has launched several impositions upon the Pilot Community including landing fees (exempting Robinson Helicopters) and aviation restrictions.  It can be mentioned that sitting on the City Council during these attacks is a councilmember that is involved in the business of real estate.  The argument has been made that the City has "overstepped" their jurisdiction.  The City has chosen to not renew certain business licenses for operators long established on the field.

Torrance Airport - Zamperini Field is a hotbed of controversy.

Home to the Western Museum of Flight, Robinson Helicopters, a large Flight Training Facility among others, a small terminal, and the Torrance Airport Association.  "The airport is classified by the FAA as a Regional Reliever and was once known as Torrance Municipal Airport; it was renamed for local sports and war hero Louis Zamperini on December 7, 1946, the fifth anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack." - Wikipedia

Yet, no matter the rich heritage and the important place Torrance occupies in the LA Airspace as a reliever, the home of an aviation industry leader, and a center for pilot education, the City of Torrance has been accused of desiring airport closure.  Restrictions ordered by the City Council that have canceled the renewal of business licenses of airport stakeholders, the imposition of Landing Fees, the prohibition of touch and go's, the restricted flight and restricted taxi rules, the desire to regulate departure routes favoring their idea of noise abatement,  the delayed alleged purposeful lack of airport lighting repairs causing operational restrictions, and finally proposing measures that allegedly will allow airport derived income to leave the airport (City Measure TC on the November 2024 ballot), all have caused significant umbrage, in-fighting, alleged FAA Regulation Violations, and lawsuits against the City.

 

AIRPORT GROUPS and ASSOCIATIONS:

 

Torrance Airport Association

 

 

ZAMPERINI AIRFIELD PRESERVATION SOCIETY 

12/18/2024  (ZAPS) vs CITY OF TORRANCE -  The original lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in April 2024. It sought the repeal of Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) sections 51.5.1 through 51.5.7 and the vacating of Torrance Ordinance 3930 (which bans touch/stop and go operations at any time and allows full-stop-taxi-back and low approaches only at certain times). ZAPS claims the City has no authority to do so because the US Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. The lawsuit alleges that these attempts by the City to regulate the airspace above Torrance or the Airport are preempted, invalid, and unenforceable.

The City of Torrance responded to the ZAPS complaint, denying all of the allegations it contained.

The City later requested that the suit be removed to Federal Court. ZAPS agreed. The Federal Court set a Scheduling Conference for 1/14/2025, which will determine the schedule for further actions and trial.

Read the Complaint - Click Here

 

FRIENDS OF ZAMPERINI FIELD 

From Commentary written by Jim Gates:

      What do they support?

If you believe that Torrance Airport is an irreplaceable regional asset for transportation, education, recreation, and emergency response serving the entire South Bay community, please make a contribution so we can protect Torrance Airport from closure.

     WE SUPPORT:

• Compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs)
• LEGAL and SAFE noise reduction procedures that are consistent with FARs
• Safe and efficient management and operation of Torrance Airport to maximize the airport's value to the entire South Bay community
• City Council candidates who understand the value of our airport and promote aviation
• City measures that promote the best practices for this unique and irreplaceable community asset

     WE DO NOT SUPPORT:

• Closing Torrance Airport
• Diversion of funds raised from airport property
• Any policy that reduces the value of Torrance Airport
• Driving businesses and users from Torrance Airport
• Harrassment of legal aviation businesses on Torrance Airport
• Closing any Torrance Airport runways
• Any City measures that degrade the utility of our airport

 

NEW ADVENTURES at KTOA

Sling Academy Contributes

Torrance Airport Family Days Pancake Breakfast

Torrance Airport Family Days   -   9 am-12 pm One Saturday of Every Month

Our Airport!

Join us for a Zamperini Field open house on one Saturday of every month from 9 am-12 pm. Come through the fence to experience hands-on airplane building at our STEM station, fly a real aircraft simulator, participate in children’s arts and crafts and have a pancake breakfast on us! All are welcome – this is YOUR airport.

Join us for a Pancake Breakfast and family-friendly airport open house. All are welcome – this is YOUR airport!

• Pancakes and Coffee served on us (donations optional).
• Arts & Crafts activities for young children.
• For older children and adults, fly an FAA-Certified flight simulator.
• For those interested in how airplanes are built, pull some rivets on real airplane parts and learn how airplanes are constructed at our STEM station in our aircraft build center.
• See and touch (and maybe sit in) some rare aircraft on display, and meet the pilots that operate them.
• Take a short walk to visit the Western Museum of Flight and see some rare and special aircraft exhibits. The Museum has waived their $10 fee for Family Day visitors!

Sign Up for Event and Info Updates HERE.

 

NEWS ITEMS/CHALLENGES:

 

04/14/2025    Important update—Getting a SLAPP?  (Opinion by Jim Gates) - In my last post, I recounted a study that was made in the late 1990s:

For years, I have monitored and studied complaints about operations at the Torrance Airport and the number of individuals making those complaints. My first study, of a 14-month period in the late 1990s, was made when names and addresses were included in requests for public documents under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  That study revealed some very embarrassing information:

• the person making the most complaints lived in Manhattan Beach--over 7 miles from the airport,
• the Torrance resident who made the most complaints was the Chairman of the Airport Commission, and
• only 12 individuals made over half of the complaints.

The chairman I described was the Airport Commission Chairman at that time—not the current Airport Commission Chairman.

04/13/2025   Getting a SLAPP?  (Opinion by Jim Gates)  -  SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It refers to lawsuits filed with the primary goal of silencing or intimidating individuals or organizations who have spoken out on matters of public concern. These lawsuits are often filed with little or no merit, and their purpose is to burden the defendant financially and emotionally, rather than to seek a genuine legal remedy.

For years, I have monitored and studied complaints about operations at the Torrance Airport and the number of individuals making those complaints. My first study, of a 14-month period in the late 1990s, was made when names and addresses were included in requests for public documents under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  That study revealed some very embarrassing information:

• the person making the most complaints lived in Manhattan Beach--over 7 miles from the airport,
• the Torrance resident who made the most complaints was the Chairman of the Airport Commission, and
• only 12 individuals made over half of the complaints.

On 2/22/2025, I reported on my analysis of a sudden jump in the complaint rate for December 2024 (“Pulling Back the Curtain”).  It revealed a huge difference between what the Casper system reports to the public and the actual number of individuals making airport complaints as listed in my CPRA response.  The numbers reported to the public by the Casper system were overstated by 43% in October, by 100% in November and by a whopping 762% in December 2024.

In their response to two CPRA requests, the City included several data items that I did not specifically request, including a last name associated with each complaint.  In good faith, I believed that any information released in response to a CPRA request was, in fact, PUBLIC INFORMATION.  This allowed me to discover the discrepancies noted above.

Weeks after that report was made public, the City Clerk and City Attorney wrote me to claim that the last names I used in my analysis were "inadvertently" released and the names were "privileged, exempt from release and confidential."  Although they were unable to produce any documentation that conferred this special status, they threatened me with legal action if I did not take steps to correct THEIR error by removing the names  from any websites or places where my report had been posted.

On 4/12/2025, I received a letter from Rutan & Tucker, LLP, stating that they had been hired by the City of Torrance to take legal action if I did not comply with the City's demands.  This is clearly a threat to file a SLAPP lawsuit.  Stay tuned—more to come.

04/08/2025   KTOA Runway Closures -  Compliments of Gary Palmer - KTOA will be closing Runway 29R/11L (Primary Runway)  Thursday April 10, 2025, - Friday April 11, from 10:00pm - 6:00am (DAILY OVERNIGHT)

KTOA will be closing Runway 29L/11R (Secondary Runway) Monday April 7, 2025, from 10:00pm - 6:00am (OVERNIGHT) local time and Thursday April 10, 2025, - Friday April 11, from 10:00pm - 6:00am (DAILY OVERNIGHT)
If you have any questions, please call the airport.

KTOA will end on Saturday April 12 at 6am local time

04/08/2025   Legal Opinion:  As a point of fact, it was pointed out today that it is legal to exempt aircraft based at an airport from Landing Fees.  Information to the contrary was described as poor advice.  Hence if the City of Torrance chosse to exempt Torrance Airport based aircraft they could do so.

04/06/2025   An Update for Airport Customers   (Opinion by Jim Gates)

Airfield Lighting Repairs

The airfield lighting repairs are estimated by city staff to cost $3 million.  The City Charter revision last November eliminated Section 15 of the City Charter (Airport Fund).  That Section specified that money earned from airport property must be spent (as a priority) on airport operations and maintenance.  With that Charter revision, the airport was essentially de-funded!  Money earned by airport property is no longer required to be placed in the Airport Fund and whatever money the City does place in the Airport Fund is no longer required to be spent on airport operations, maintenance and development.  With that move, the Airport Fund's $10 million annual "surplus" (that could have been applied to this project) magically disappears into the General Fund.  So now, the airfield lighting repairs must compete with other city demands (like raises for the City Council).

For months, we have been told that a Request For Proposals (RFP) to make the repairs would be released in “the 3rd quarter of 2024-2025.”  I just checked the City of Torrance list of outstanding RFPs and there is no such item listed.  The 3rd quarter of 2024-2025 ended March 30.

A New Justification For Landing Fees?

City Staff claimed at the Round Table Meeting that landing fees are necessary to pay for the airfield lighting repairs.  In 2024, the City received a total of $172,312 from landing fees. At that rate, it will take 17.4 years to pay the estimated $3 million for the repairs.  Are we going to have to wait another 17 years for the repairs to be made?  Airport operations for 2025 are projected to be even lower than for 2024, so it may take even longer.

Airport Stakeholder Round Table Meeting (Update)

In preparation for the Airport Stakeholder Round Table, I had prepared a list of questions that airport customers had asked about.  Since I was denied admission to the meeting and was unable to ask my questions, I sent them to Mayor Chen on 3/20 for answers.  I asked about

•  the schedules for AWOS installation and the airfield lighting repairs,
• what the staff plans to do to respond to our airport customer survey from last year, and
• why the city keeps publishing false information on the Casper System website.

So far--no response from Mayor Chen.

A Correction

Richard Seals and I had a discussion concerning the summary of the City's "Airport Stakeholders" meeting that I published in the Airport Report recently.  He felt that it mischaracterized his position on landing fees. He explained that he does not support landing fees, but if the City is determined to charge them, they should only be applied to non-based aircraft and maybe also to based flight schools.

 

03/29/2025    3/20/2025 Airport Stakeholder Round Table Meeting  (by Peter Broen, TAA  Pres.) 

Attendees:

City of Torrance

• Joe Zev
• Nora Duncan (Noise Abatement Manager)
• Michelle Ramirez (Community Development Director)
• Rafael Herrera (Airport Manager)
• Shant Megerdichian (General Services Director)
• Gerry Pinela (Airport Business Manager)
• Greg Lodan

Airport Customers

• TAA - Peter Broen

• Sling PA - Matt Liknaitzky

• PSA – Reza Birjandi

• South Bay – Richard Seals

• Robinson – Keith Newmeyer

• Dave Solano

• WMOF – Cindy Macha

COTAR

• Chuck Costello

• Richard Root

An invitation-only meeting was held in the General Aviation Center with the stated purpose to discuss the current status of Airport operations and noise abatement.

Long-term airport tenant and Torrance resident Jim Gates asked more than once if he could attend. He was denied. Additionally, two Airport Commissioners asked if they could attend but were denied. Although FAA tower people were invited, none attended. Tower people have previously expressed their belief that meetings with City staff were of little value.

Landing fees were discussed. In Council meetings to discuss the imposition of landing fees, South Bay Aviation’s Richard Seals was the lone airport operator to express support for the fees. At this meeting, he spoke that he is happy with the fees and that they were having the desired effect of reducing airport traffic. He did, however, complain about Vector billing errors and the effort required to make corrections.

Others spoke about the landing fees. I said that the TAA membership, which is mostly not flight schools, is definitely not happy with the fees. I suggested that the TAA membership feels the landing fee program is unnecessary and was based on a dishonest premise. While the stated purpose is to offset costs of operating the airport, it is well known that the fees were implemented as a measure to reduce operations at the airport. Shant said that the City has been careful to use the operating cost rationale for the fees. I said that for those of us that attended the Council meetings when fees were discussed, the discussion was always about reducing airport operations. While the City staff were careful to say the fees are about money,

City Council was not and was upfront that the purpose was to reduce operations. It is

interesting that the City staff were careful to use the operating cost explanation because they are well aware that an access restriction in the form of a fee is improper.

I said that a stated goal of the airport restrictions and fees was return to pre-Covid (pre-training rush) operations numbers and the measures have overshot the mark. Operations are at all-time lows. I suggested that the City start to lift some of the restrictions and fees. Shant said that would be up to City Council.

Matt commented that the landing fees and the restriction on touch and goes are both very burdensome for Sling PA. Matt described Sling efforts to move operations to nearby airports.

COTAR remains disappointed that the City’s hearing board (for punishing violations of the Municipal Code) is still not conducting hearings. Michelle Ramirez said that the necessary changes to the Municipal Code to address legal shortcomings are still in the works. It sounds like the process will have a single “impartial” hearing board officer selected by the City manager. They want to stay with the hearing board approach rather than using the municipal courts and misdemeanor charges. It is not clear how the new version will address concerns with lack of judicial review (City is prosecutor, selects the judge, and appeals go to the City Council).

It remains clear that the main conflict (re noise abatement) is between the City and flight schools. Fees and restrictions were aimed at the flight schools and the remaining tenants were simply collateral damage. Richard Seals basically said as much during the meeting.

The COTAR group is very appreciative of noise abatement efforts by Matt and the Sling PA.  Matt described briefly the Fly Friendly SOCAL efforts by flight schools to promote noise abatement protocols.

Gerry gave an update on various ongoing projects

• AWOS

• Taxi/Runway LED lighting

• Replacement of security cameras

The meeting participants were selected by the City staff to be well controlled, avoid any controversy and minimize criticism of staff. The exclusion of Jim Gates, who has historically been critical of airport management, is not surprising. The exclusion of Airport Commissioners is surprising to me.

My impression is that the City held this meeting to give the appearance that they are listening to the airport stakeholders and addressing their interests and concerns. The recent criticism of City staff by COTAR for poor noise abatement reporting and lack of transparency may have been a factor encouraging staff to call this meeting.  Unfortunately, the City has no one on staff that has any enthusiasm for the airport or vision of what the airport could be.

Peter Broen, President,  Torrance Airport Association

 

03/24/2025

What is  a Torrance Airport stakeholder?  by Jim Gates    (Article #2)

As I noted in a previous Airport Report, a select few were invited to ". . .an Airport round table stakeholder meeting to discuss the current status of Airport operations and noise abatement."  Among the invitees listed in the letter were:  "Torrance Airport users, including businesses and private tenants, Robinson Helicopter, Western Museum of Flight, Community Members, and City of Torrance Staff."

Although I did not receive an invitation, I asked to attend.  But I was refused.  I had a number of questions to discuss, so I sent an e-mail with the questions to George Chen, Mayor of Torrance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/20/2025

Hon Mayor George Chen (via e-mail--GChen@TorranceCA.gov)

City of Torrance

Torrance, CA

Hon Mayor Chen:

Last week, I learned about a planned "Airport round table stakeholder meeting."  The invitation letter, which was shared with me by an invitee, stated that ".. .[a]s an airport user, your everyday knowledge and experience will provide valuable feedback so that the airport will continue to be a successful asset. .."  Since I have been a Torrance homeowner and an airport customer for over a half-century, this person felt I might have very valuable knowledge and experience to share and they suggested that I request to be permitted to attend. So, I e-mailed the letter's author, Mr Pinela.

Mr Pinela denied my request. Still, I hoped that the meeting might provide an opportunity to have some dialog with airport management--dialog that is lacking at the Airport Commission meetings due to the strict enforcement of the 1-minute gag rule.  I e-mailed Mr Pinela and asked for an agenda and list of invitees.  The request was ignored.

So, today, I went to the GAC at the meeting time and again asked to attend.  Mr Pinela very rudely denied my request and again refused my request for an agenda (which Mr Pinela was handing out to invitees at the meeting room door) and an invitee list.  He brusquely stated that this was HIS meeting and that only one person from each of the invitee organizations was permitted to attend (except, as I found out later, that COTAR was permitted two attendees:  Richard Root and Chuck Costello).  He made it very clear that I was NOT invited and that there was no interest in my knowledge, experience or feedback as an airport customer.

In preparation for the meeting, I had prepared a list of questions that airport customers, including four of the meeting invitees, have been asking.  After the meeting, those four invitees recounted that only two of our questions (about AWOS and Airfield Lighting) were mentioned at the meeting, but that no answers to those questions were forthcoming.

Therefore, I am asking you to please provide the answers to our 13 questions (attached) and improve transparency on airport issues.

Respectfully,

Jim Gates

---

QUESTIONS FOR THE "AIRPORT ROUND TABLE"

3/20/2025

If the City listened to its airport customers, treated them honestly and fairly, and

complied with the law, there would be no need for litigation.

AWOS

Proposals were submitted 3/11/2025. Good work!

1) When is the contract award date?

2) When will ATP be given?

Airfield lighting

Taxiway lighting has been inoperative for over 5 years. The City has spent nearly $500k on failed attempts to fix it. Restoration of the airfield lighting was rated "2nd Most Needed" on our Airport Customer Survey (https://www.torranceairport.org/SURVEY). When the Airport Commission asked about the unexplained delays, it was shuttered for 4 months and the commissioners threatened with violations of the Brown Act.

The City website says the RFP will be released in "3rd quarter of 2024-25." There are 11 days left in that period. No RFP is listed on the Torrance bid board.

3) What is the true status of this project?

4) When will the RFP actually be released?

5) When is the proposal due date?

Airport customers survey

75% of airport customers rent hangars; 75% have been airport customers for 10 or more years; 55% for 20 or more years. The Airport Report Survey in September 2024 showed: 91% of airport customers don't feel valued; 72% don't feel they are treated honestly or fairly.

6) What is being done to change this?

Condition of the airport--survey results

The survey of airport customers' opinions of Torrance Airport as compared to other similar GA airports revealed that 55% rated the overall airport condition as "below average" or "poor."

7) What is being done to remedy this?

Interactions with City personnel

The survey results revealed ratings of how various City organizations interacted with airport customers:

• Airport office: 60% "good" or "excellent"
• Airport operations: 78% "good" or "excellent"
• Noise abatement: 68% "fair" or "poor"
• City management: 86% "fair" or "poor"

8) What is being done to remedy the "fair" and "poor" ratings?

Casper System's false reports

The Casper system cost $284,000 plus $70,000 per year, but it puts out false reports. Here is a comparison of the number of individuals filing complaints as reported by the Casper on-line system and the actual number of individuals listed on the logs I obtained under CPRA.

9) What is being done to correct the false reports made in 2024Q4

10) What is being done to correct the ongoing reports?

11) What is being done to insure that the complaint data is not being flooded by

false reports

12) How can we independently confirm that the true numbers are being reported?

Quarterly Noise Abatement Reports

The current reports are obscure and fail to provide a realistic picture of the airport's effects on the surrounding neighbors. Some of the facts missing from the Noise Abatement Reports:

• Only 4 individuals accounted for nearly 90% of the 2024Q4 complaints

• One single individual made over 53% of the complaints for the quarter

• Ten individuals made complaints every month in the quarter.

13) What is being done to provide true transparency?

 

 

03/16/2025

Are you a Torrance Airport stakeholder? - By Jim Gates

In a letter dated 2/27/2025, Mr Pinela, Facilities Operations Manager, invited a select few to ". . .an Airport round table stakeholder meeting to discuss the current status of Airport operations and noise abatement."  The meeting will take place March 20th from 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM at the General Aviation Center meeting room.

Among the invitees listed in the letter were:  "Torrance Airport users, including businesses and private tenants, Robinson Helicopter, Western Museum of Flight, Community Members, and City of Torrance Staff."

Although I did not receive an invitation, I asked to attend because I am:

• an airport customer for over a half-century;
• a Torrance homeowner for over a half-century;
• a prior Torrance Airport Commissioner;
• a prior board member for four years of the Hollywood Riviera Homeowners Association,
• an organizer of the Torrance Airport Air Fairs for 4 years;
• the organizer of the Collings Foundation bomber visits for 5 years;
• the publisher of The Airport Report (with 646 airport customer subscribers as of today) and
• the Past President and prior Board Member of the Torrance Airport Association for over 20 years.

I feel that the interests of the majority of Airport Customers are not adequately represented by the attendees mentioned in Mr Pinela's letter of 2/27/2025.  For example, the Museum, although a valuable airport tenant, has few if any active pilots and the Airport businesses, which in the past have been threatened with expulsion from the Airport if they don't acquiesce to City demands, represent their own business interests.

I have asked Mr Pinela to allow me to participate in the meeting and provide feedback regarding current operation of the airfield based on our recent survey you filled out--not just be "filled in" afterward about the outcome.  When he refused, I asked for a list of invitees and an agenda.  Nine days later, no response.

What do you think?

If you would like to share your views about your representation as an airport stakeholder at this round table,

• Mr Pinela receives e-mail at GPinela@TorranceCA.gov
• or the City Council receives e-mail at:  CityCouncil@TorranceCA.gov

 

03/14/2025

A Peek Behind the Curtain - by Jim Gates

In my previous Airport Report (2/21/2025), I revealed that our Casper monitoring system (which cost $284,000 plus $70,000 per year for maintenance and upgrades) was giving false reports to the public.  In a response to my request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), the City Clerk included last names for every complaint filed in October, November and December of 2024 (even though no names were requested).  As a result, I was able to discover that the Casper on-line reports inflated the number of persons filing complaints by 20% in October, 50% in November and a WHOPPING 877% in December.  This false information is still posted on the Noise Lab website today.

I wondered if this pattern of false information was present for the earlier part of 2024 and continued into January and February of 2025, so I requested (under CPRA) the log data for those months.  Without a way to determine the actual number of persons making airport complaints, the extent of this misinformation cannot be determined.  So, I  requested the first 3 letters of last names be provided--not the complete last names that the City had previously released.

The City Clerk refused, stating that ". . .this information, in combination with other public data such as complaint location or date, could still lead to the identification of specific individuals"  and ".. .disclosure of even limited personal information could undermine the confidentiality that is essential to encouraging future complaints."  [emphasis added]

When did it become the City's goal to encourage future complaints?  I asked the City Clerk via CPRA to provide any documentation that conferred the stated confidentiality.  The City Clerk reported it has none.  Furthermore, I did not request any complaint location information.

For the time being, I have agreed not to include the first 3 letters of an individual complainers' last name in any reports I publish.  But some unique identification of the source of each complaint is essential to perform the analysis. To illustrate, here are some of the things I learned about the complaints from the 4th Quarter of 2024, when I did have access to that unique identifier.

 

Since the City threatened legal action if I included actual complainants' names, I use an Identification Number (Complainant ID) that is unique to each complainant.

This graphic shows:

• ONE individual (ID #24123) made nearly half of the quarter's complaints

• Over 90% of the complaints were made by just FIVE individuals.

• Only 25 individuals made complaints in the quarter

I also noted the the individual making the most quarterly complaints (ID# 24123) also made 69% of the October 2024 complaints.

When I looked through the complaints, I also found that 5 of these individuals made NO complaints about airport operations.  They were complaining only about a neighbor's loud music, leaf blowers, tree trimming or barking dogs.  So only 20 individuals complained about airport operations during entire 3-month period!

Why would the City want to hide these facts from the public?

If you would like to share your views about the public value of this information,

• the City Clerk’s e-mail is:  RPoirier@torraceCA.gov
• and the City Council receives e-mail at:  CityCouncil@TorranceCA.gov

 

03/10/2025   - Robinson Unveils 10-Seat R88 At Verticon - From AVweb - "Largest-ever Robinson will sell for $3.3 million. Robinson Helicopters has launched its first new design in 15 years and the R88 is the biggest Robinson ever. The new $3.3 million aircraft was unveiled Sunday ahead of Verticon, formerly Heli-Expo, which is being held in Dallas this week. The R88 will carry up to 10 people (eight in the back, two in the pilot seats) but its configuration can be quickly changed to take a variety of different loads. "The highly configurable R88 is designed for..."  Continue.

Commitment to Being a Good Neighbor - From Sling's Website -

03/08/2025  "Sling, among other general aviation aircraft operators at both Long Beach and other airports across the region, have faced mounting public pressure from adjacent communities over noise pollution. Sling’s Torrance flight school, for example, was put in jeopardy after the town declined to renew the company’s business license for 2024. The City Council did so — citing a 1977 local ordinance that, while it had never been enforced, limited the number of flight schools that could operate at its municipal airport — because of residential complaints about noise.

The controversy played out for months — and eventually led to a lawsuit. Sling and the city, however, settled the issue out of court in April after some legal back-and-forth. The settlement resulted in Sling’s lawsuit and a Federal Aviation Administration complaint being dismissed.

“We don’t have any outstanding issues with the city,” Liknaitzky said about Torrance. “It’s our biggest location, and we don’t have any plans to leave.”   For More Info about Sling and their flight school locations visit their Website:

03/03/2025  -  The Robinson Helicopter CEO discussed how the Torrance-based manufacturer's helicopters helped out during the Palisades Fire, flying some fire commanders in aerial support, and providing transport to fire crews.
Robinson Helicopters Support California Firefighting Efforts https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2025-01-29/robinson-helicopters-support-firefighting-efforts

 

03/03/2025

Pulling Back the Curtain - By Jim Gates

2/22/2025   Commentary by Jim Gates -  "I thought I should share my recent drama with the City of Torrance.  The City Clerk is threatening legal action against me for a mistake made solely by her office.  Here is the story of my glimpse behind the curtain.

Errors exposed

As you probably know, I have for years been analyzing data about the Torrance Airport and those who complain about it. The $284,000 Casper monitoring system accepts airport complaints and provides the public with data about the number of complaints and the number of persons complaining.   As this graphic shows, there was a huge spike (400%) in the number of people making complaints in December of 2024 as reported by that system.  There was also an increase in the number of complaints that month (38%).  I wondered what the cause was.

As I have done for years, I submitted a request through the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for the December log of complaint data, which I received on 1/13/2025.  I also submitted a request for the October and November logs which I received on 2/5/2025.  Both sets of log data contained the last name of the person making each complaint. This allowed me to make a comparison between the Casper data presented to the public and the actual log data.

Clearly, it is possible that complaints may be..."  To CONTINUE and view the FULL Report please CLICK HERE.

From: Zamperini Field - Torrance Municipal Airport - Noise Abatement Center

3301 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505 - Aircraft Noise Monitored - 24 Hours per Day   

2/19/2025 Pilots: Download the New (2/14/25) Noise Abatement Flyer and Location of Noise Monitors HERE

Courtesy of Gary Palmer, CFI

 

Recommended Changes to the Noise Abatement Program 

2/15/2025   Commentary by Jim Gates -  "The Airport Commission advises the City Council on matters concerning the Torrance Airport in the areas of development of airport facilities, aeronautical leases of airport land, airport special events and airport noise.  To do so, the Commission must have usable, transparent data on the subject.  The Community Development Department prepares quarterly reports on airport complaints and noise ordinance violations.  Over the years, the Commission has made many requests for improvements over the current, obscure reports from Noise Abatement.  So far, those requests have been ignored.

The Commission needs to know:

1. Who is complaining,
2. what are they complaining about,
3. where are the complaints coming from, and
4. what does this all mean?

The information to answer these questions is available from the Casper Monitoring System.  I requested copies of the Casper System complaint logs for the 4th quarter of 2024 via the California Public Records Act.  The results are summarized in the following table.

This clearly answers Questions #1 and #3.  It also reveals new information that:

• ten individuals made complaints in all 3 months,
•  eight individuals accounted for nearly 96% of the complaints
• one individual made over half of the complaints, and
• there is clear evidence of "spiking"complaint data

I recommended that this table be included in the Noise Abatement Quarterly Report.

Finding an answer to Question #2 is more problematic.  The Casper System provides a limited choice of "reason for complaint."  When one compares these "reason" choices to the comments on the Complaint Log, it is clear that they do not accurately reflect those comments.  Furthermore, these evaluations of aircraft operations are entirely subjective.

In spite of that, this table shows the breakdown of the Casper System on-line reporting of the complaint reasons. The "causes" list is problematic.  For example, 59% of the complaints were about "loud" aircraft, but the Casper System shows that only 20 (0.2%) of the recorded events exceeded the 82db limit. The current report states there were only 14 violations."

To CONTINUE and Read the Full Report Please Click HERE.

 

ZAPS v. City of Torrance

01/25/2025   From JG - This federal lawsuit seeks the repeal of Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) sections 51.5.1 through 51.5.7 and the vacating of Torrance Ordinance 3930 (which bans touch/stop and go operations at any time and allows full-stop-taxi-back and low approaches only at certain times).  ZAPS claims the City has no authority to do so because the US Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. The lawsuit alleges that these attempts by the City to regulate the airspace above Torrance or the Airport are preempted, invalid, and unenforceable.

On 16 January 2025, the City finally provided the Administrative Record, which is a copy of all of the memos, correspondence and e-mails related to the allegations in the suit.  It consists of 660 documents.  You can see the list by clicking the button below to “LEARN MORE.”

The Central District of California offers three Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options:

1. a settlement conference with the district judge or magistrate judge assigned to the case;

2. a mediation with a neutral selected from the Court Mediation Panel; and

3. private mediation.

On 1/22/2025, the Court issued the following order:

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.
The Court has reviewed the joint status report and sets the following deadlines:

• ADR-1 Form shall be filed on or before January 29, 2025.

• Plaintiff's [ZAPS] opening brief limited to 35 pages shall be filed on or before April 28, 2025.

• Defendant's [City of Torrance] opposition limited to 35 pages shall be filed on or before June 9, 2025.

• Plaintiff's reply brief limited to 17 pages shall be filed on or before June 24, 2025.

• Motion for writ of mandate shall be set for oral argument on July 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. at the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 8D, 8th Floor (OR AS ASSIGNED), Los Angeles, California 90012

For More Information:  Click Here

 

Personal Comment re: Proposed Ordinance 10B

01/13/2025    "The city has, in the past, put forward their plans to damage the pilots.  Many of the responses (to the council) explained why they could not execute the plan. The city then went away and reformulated to revise their plan and address the provided explanation. That process happened several times, to finally settle on landing fees which have been active for a year now.

Airport Update - email

The war on Aviation in Torrance continues

01/11/2025  -  City Council 1/14/2025--targeting flight schools and aircraft rental businesses

The Community Development Department has placed a proposed Ordinance change on the agenda (Item 10B) which:

• Replaces the three-member Hearing Board with a "fair and impartial Hearing Officer" (not a city employee)--appointed by the City Manager.  This Hearing Officer will be the sole arbiter of “guilt.”  No other qualifications (aviation or legal experience NOT needed) are identified for that officer.
• Formal rules of evidence shall NOT apply.
• Hearsay evidence may be admitted even if the author is not present at the meeting.  One must assume that an anonymous noise complaint will be considered as such evidence.
• Any aircraft involved in three or more violations in three years will be excluded from the airport, regardless of who was the pilot in command.  This is clearly targeting flight schools and aircraft rental businesses.
• Implementation will commence 30 days after approval.

Please click the button below and send an e-mail to the Torrance City Council that you are opposed to their war on the airport and its customers.  Add you own comments.  It must be Received before end of business on Monday 1/13/2025.

SEND A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL:   citycouncil@torranceca.gov

Public Comment Item 10B 1/14/2025 meeting     "Please vote against approval of this Ordinance."   -

 

Airport Commission 1/9/2025--The Bad News

COTAR, represented by Chuck Costello and Richard Root,  gave a presentation at the Commission.  They admitted that they have  only "20-25 members" with a mailing list of under 200 persons.  They are demanding additional measures be taken by Noise Abatement Office to report monthly figures on non-compliance with voluntary measures.  The obvious next step will be for COTAR to demand penalties for non-compliance with those measures.

COTAR also intimated that the maximum sound level should be lowered to 60 db because that is the level at which people are “annoyed” by a continuous sound.  They showed a sample of the Santa Monica Airport noise report as the level of information they would like to see on our reports.  One of the commissioners noted that the Santa Monica Airport maximum limit is 95 db--much higher that Torrance limit of 82 db.

Airport Commission 1/9/2025--The Good News:

The City will begin repainting the tie-down ramp areas, starting on the west end and proceeding in stages.  Aircraft that relocate to the transient tie-down area will not be charged extra.  The Airport Office can provide scheduling information.

The plans for AWOS installation have been approved.  It will be installed near the mid-field windsock.  Some short runway and taxiway closures may be necessary during installation.

The commissioners asked that the airport operations data be presented with the historical context illustrating the disastrous effects that have resulted from acceding to COTAR's demands.  (see "The Airport Report, 1/5/2025:Airport Operations Nosedive.”.

Torrance Airport Operations Nosedive!

01/05/2025   Airport Report From Jim Gates - The unnecessary and punitive landing fees on most Torrance Airport customers and the City's illegal attempts to restrict airport flight activities have had a chilling effect on flight operations at our airport.

The graphic above shows the monthly operations totals, obtained from FAA data.  For comparison, the maximum, mini

mum and average of the most recent 10-year history of monthly operations is shown.  Clearly evident is a drop in monthly operations from January to February of 2024, due to the imposition of landing fees for all airport customers (except Robinson Helicopter Company).  Additional restrictions on normal airport operations further reduced operations.  In 2023, operations were near a 10-year maximum, while in 2024 operations after January are near and even below 10-year minimums.

When this report was written, FAA data for December 2024 was not yet available.  December operations over the last 10 years were 7.4% of the annual total.  Therefore, December operations for 2024 are estimated to be approximately 7,275.

The graphic above, obtained from FAA data and City of Torrance reports, shows that Torrance Airport operations for 2024 are predicted to be the lowest in 62 years!  Unless the current federal lawsuits contesting the legality of the landing fees and

operational restrictions are resolved in favor of airport customers, the operations for 2025 will likely be the lowest in the airport's 77 year history!

The recent passage of Measure TC, which eliminated the City Charter requirement for money earned from airport property to be spent on airport operations and maintenance as a priority,  bodes ill for the longevity of the airport.  Its funding now must compete with other City needs (like raises for the City Council).  Oh, and expect Jon Kaji’s study of replacing the airport with his “planned development” to come alive again.

NTOA NOISE VIOLATION? - WHAT TO DO    

12/30/2024   Background Investigation Report by Gary Palmer  -  Recommendation offered to SCAUWG.ORG : "Pilots receiving a noise abatement "letter of violation" or "notice to appear" are encouraged to contact a lawyer to provide a response.  The city does not have a published process and may not have a defined process at all.  AOPA legal services can connect you to Chris Harshman who has experience on pilot cases against the city."

View a DETAILED Account of Correspondence with the City of Torrance on this Topic HERE.

Problems with the AIRPORT NOISE HEARING BOARD

12/13/2024   Report by Jim Gates -" I received a letter on official City of Torrance letterhead dated 4/30/2024 and entitled "First and Final Notice of Violation". The letter stated that I had "violated" the Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) on Sunday, April 28/2024, by flying the portion of the FAA-approved RNAV(GPS) RWY 29R procedure that is required when a landing cannot be legally made.  This operation is defined by TMC51.5.4 as a "low approach."  The letter also stated that violations ".. .may be heard by an Administrative Hearing Board, and can result in denial of use of the Airport by owner or pilot."

It made no sense to me that a pilot complying with FAA Regulations could be punished by the City of Torrance for doing so.  Since I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), I contacted their legal department.  They advised me to simply ignore the letter because Federal Law preempts any state or local attempts to regulate aviation--making those TMC "regulations" invalid and unenforceable.

I wondered how many Hearing Board decisions had been rendered on invalid and unenforceable TMC "regulations" and reviewed the agendas of the Hearing Board meetings for the past 2 years.

I noted the following facts about the Board cases over the past 2 years:

In spite of its title (Airport NOISE Hearing Board), none of the Board's 10 cases involved an aircraft exceeding the sound limits set forth in TMC Section 46.8.8, or 46.8.9.

Three of the cases were about "low approach" violations. No information was available about whether these were due to missed approaches or to aborted landings (also included in the definition of "low approach" in TMC 51.5.4). These actions are required by FAA Regulations in certain conditions for safety reasons.

The only Board decisions of "guilty" were against aircraft NOT based at Torrance. There was no information on whether these pilots were represented by counsel or even attended the hearing in person.

Three of the Torrance-based pilots sought legal advice and their hearings were either cancelled or postponed.

The summons for the fourth Torrance-based pilot was rescinded the day after he received it. He, too, had planned to seek legal advice.

All ten of the cases involved TMC sections that are currently the subject of an active Federal Court case questioning the validity and enforceability of those sections.

I contact the local lawyer who had advised the Torrance-based pilots. He explained that the Hearing Board is improper and illegal for the reasons noted below.

1) No authority:

Substantial air safety issues are implicated when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation of aircraft. The general balance between Federal and state authority in the context of aviation regulation is well established. The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety and the efficient use of the airspace by aircraft. Attempts by state and local governments to regulate in those fields are invalid and unenforceable.

2) Preemption:

A state or local law dealing with aviation will be preempted if it conflicts with FAA regulations. Any sch law is preempted if, as with the TMC Sections 51.5.5 through 51.5.7, it makes compliance with FAA regulations impossible or frustrates the purposes and objectives of such regulations. These ordinances conflict with FAA's exclusive authority involving takeoffs, landings, touch and go’s, stop and go’s, and low approaches. Courts across the country have confirmed that the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving aviation safety. A small sampling of these court rulings is contained in the attachment, below.

3) Wrong purpose:

These hearings are purportedly being held “as provided in TMC Section 51.7." However, that section, by its plain text, applies only to persons charged with causing an aircraft to exceed the sound limits set forth in TMC Section 46.8.8, or 46.8.9. It does not address TMC Sections 51.5.5, 51.5.6, or 51.5.7 at all, nor do those sections reference an Administrative Hearing Board.

4) No judicial review:

The entire Hearing Board scheme, which provides for an appeal only to the City Council, is impermissible under the California Constitution, as it does not allow for judicial review. This violates the separation of powers contemplated by the California Constitution, as well as the judicial powers clause. It permits the City of Torrance to act as policeman, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner without any independent review.

5) Lack of impartiality:

All of the Board members are City employees. This raises serious questions concerning the impartiality of the composition of the Airport Noise Hearing Board, which is also required under California law.

6) Pending litigation:

Federal litigation is currently pending that challenges the City's claim that it has the authority to enforce TMC Sections 51.5.5 through 51.5.7. Any City actions involving these sections of the TMC should be deferred until resolution of this litigation is complete.

 

Conclusion

The Airport Noise Hearing Board has been acting outside of its authority and should be discontinued. Any City actions involving the TMC sections in dispute must be postponed until resolution of the litigation is complete and the ability of the City to enforce the TMC Sections is determined by the Courts.

______________

ATTACHMENT:

Some of the legal basis for FAA's exclusive authority over all matters involving aviation safety:

The Supremacy Clause:

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "Supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws.

Preemption Doctrine:

The Preemption Doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It holds that certain matters are of such a national (as opposed to local) character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state or local laws. As such, a state or local government may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law. A state or local law may be struck down, even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Congress has long vested the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate airspace use and air traffic control. In simple terms, this means that ordinances passed by state and local governments that attempt to regulate aviation in these areas are invalid and unenforceable.

Case Law:

Local governments cannot regulate control of aircraft or airspace, or any aspect of aviation navigation. City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, 72 Cal. App. 4th 366, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28 (2d Dist.1999).

Limitations on aircraft taking off and use of the airport runway involve air safety, which is field preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. Restrictions that conflict with the Federal Aviation Act or sufficiently interfere with federal regulation of air safety are preempted. Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority v. Tong, 930 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2019). •

Municipal ordinances cannot prohibit flights of aircraft at altitudes (i.e. low approaches, missed approaches, aborted landings). Only the federal government has the right to regulate safe altitudes of flight at any elevation and take-off and landing patterns. Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812, 17 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d (PUR) 244 (2d Cir. 1956).

An airport cannot restrict the number of planes flying, as it constitutes an attempt to regulate air navigation which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Gary Leasing, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Pendleton, 127 Misc. 2d 194, 485 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1985).

Aviation commerce and safety are governed by pervasive federal regulations, and applicable local standards are field-preempted. The Federal government, not the city, controls the airspace above city limits. Noise regulation ordinances, flight-pattern controls, restrictions on operations, air safety regulations, and pilot drug-testing provisions are all impliedly preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA). International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F.Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

In May of 2015, the Torrance City Attorney stated: "Congress has tasked the Secretary of Transportation, via the FAA, with the task of "assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce," as well as "controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations." (49 U.S.C. 44718, subd. (d).)The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognizes that, "federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety." Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 464,473.)

California state courts note that the Ninth Circuit's position is consistent with the positions taken by the Second, Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits. {Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Env't v. Cnty. of Kern 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 360, 364 [noting that the aforementioned Circuits of the Federal Court of Appeals have concluded that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of aviation safety."].)

 

TAA vs City of Torrance

12/04/2024   On 2/1/2024, the City of Torrance began collecting landing fees from all Torrance Airport customers (except for the Robinson Helicopter Company) under Resolution 3927. The fees, the City stated, ". . .are necessary to offset the City's costs incurred in maintaining and operating airport facilities."  No studies, documentation or any support for this claim was ever presented.  In fact, over the past 10 years, the City's own public records show that it has transferred over $10 million annually into the General Fund from the Airport Fund because, it claimed, this money was not needed for the operation and maintenance of the airport.

On March 8, 2024, TAA filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.  TAA claims that:

• the landing fees constitute an illegal restriction on aircraft in flight and, as such, are preempted by Federal Law, and
• the fees are arbitrary and capricious because they were not supported by substantial evidence of their economic need.

The TAA lawsuit asks the Court to:

• order the City to vacate and repeal Ordinance 3927, and
• order the City to refund all landing fees collected.

 

The City recently filed an Answer to the TAA complaint and, as a result, TAA filed an amended complaint to include the City's discriminatory exclusion of Robinson Helicopter Company from paying landing fees.

Read the Complaint - Click Here

 

Torrance  Airport-Upcoming Airport Restriping Notification

1/22/2024   Report by Jim Gates  -  This project involves the re-striping of our runways and taxiways. During this period, these areas will be closed, resulting in disruptions to normal operations. We will make every effort to minimize inconvenience and ensure the work is done efficiently and safely. Pertinent NOTAMs will be issued as outlined below. Please note that the times provided are local, while NOTAMs will be issued in Zulu time.

 

     Project Details and Impact:

Phase I (Monday, December 2nd - Thursday, December 5th)
Work Hours: Monday -Thursday, 6:00 AM to 4:01 PM

     Expected Impact:

• Runway 11L/29R-Closed
• Taxiway Bravo-Closed
• Taxiway Charlie North of Taxiway Alpha-Closed
• Taxiway Hotel North of Taxiway Alpha-Closed
• "Taxiway Juliet-Closed

     Phase II (Friday, December 6th)
Work Hours: Friday, 06:00 AM - 4:01 PM

     Expected Impact:

• Runway 11R/29LClosed
• Taxiway Alpha-Closed East of Taxiway Bravo, West of Taxiway Echo
• Taxiway Charlie and Delta-Closed
• Taxiway Echo North of Alpha-Closed
• Taxiway Foxtrot North of Alpha-Closed
• Taxiway Golf North of Alpha-Closed

     Phase III (Saturday, December 7th)
Work Hours: Saturday, 06:00 AM - 4:01 PM

     Expected Impact:

• Runway 11R/29L-Closed
• Taxiway Alpha-Closed East of Taxiway Echo, West of Taxiway Juliet
• Taxiway Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel-Closed

NOTE: A NOTAM will be issued for NO operations of aircraft with a 50ft wingspan or greater from December 2nd to December 7th. Please check all NOTAMs prior to arrival or departure to ensure you have the most up-to-date information.

During this period, please remain vigilant of aircraft movements on the ramp. Vehicles operating in this area must exercise heightened caution, always yield to aircraft, and strictly adhere to all operational guidelines.

If you have any concerns or need additional information, please do not hesitate to reach out to the airport office at (310) 784-7914. They will keep you updated throughout the project's duration.

11/19/2024   Changes to the Noise Hearing process?   -  Airport Report by Jim Gates

On 11/18/2024, Michelle Ramirez (Community Development Director) held a "meet and greet" for her noise abatement department at the airport.  I did not attend, but I received a call afterward from Reza Birjandi (owner of Pacific Skies flight school), who did attend.

Reza said that Ms Ramirez relayed the following at the meeting:

• "Violations" of Torrance Municipal Code (TMC) will be charged against both the pilot AND the aircraft.  In other words, if one of a flight school's aircraft are found "guilty" 3 times within a three-year period, the aircraft will be banned from the airport.

• This is not codified in any current Torrance Municipal Code, but Michelle said that the City Council will consider this change at a meeting in mid-December.

This would clearly be an existential problem for a flight school with many, many people flying a few airplanes.  An aircraft could be banned from the airport even if the “violations” were made by three different pilots.  Also, any pilot executing three missed approaches or aborted landings (defined by TMC 51.5.4 as a “low approach”) on weekends during a three-year period could also face banishment.

Four Torrance pilots were called before the Hearing Board during the past two years--two for doing low approaches, one for touch-and-gos and one for training and taxi-back.  Lawyer Chris Harshman responded to these with letters to Ramirez, noting the legal problems with the construction of the Hearing Board process.

The letters written by Mr Harshman pointed out that the Airport Noise Hearing Board, made up entirely of city employees, illegally acted as policeman, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner with no judicial review.  As a result, all four of those cases were either rescinded, dismissed or "postponed."  All of the pilots NOT based at TOA were not represented by counsel and were found "guilty."

Two weeks ago, we were notified that the Hearing Board was discontinued until after the start of the new year.

I spoke with Matt Liknaitzky (co-CEO of Sling Pilot Academy), who also attended the meeting.  He also had some discussions with Ms Ramirez and she offered the following:

• Matt pointed out that the banishment of a flight school airplane from the airport after being found "guilty" could expose a small flight school (which had many pilots flying that aircraft) to being forced out of existence. Ms Ramirez had not considered that aspect and, Matt said, she agreed to revisit that aspect of the proposed Municipal Code changes.

•  Matt says Ms Ramirez relayed that the city plans to replace the Board with a non-employee "negotiator"  or some non-employee committee.  The details will be in a staff-recommended change to the Municipal Code to be presented to City Council in mid-December.

There was no further explanation of how this solves the conflict of interest problem.  Unless this "negotiator" and/or the committee are volunteers, they would likely need to be paid by the city.  Furthermore, there is no assurance that this "negotiator" or committee world be any more impartial or mindful of aviation regulations than was the all-employee-staffed Board.  No explanation of the criteria for selecting this "negotiator" or committee is available.

The Airport Noise Hearing Board, during the past two years, has not heard ANY noise violation cases--all have been about flight violations of questionable validity (see summary table below).  A federal court case has been filed by Zamperini Airfield Protection Society challenging the city's ability to regulate any of these activities due to pre-emption by the FAA's exclusive authority to regulate aviation.  The first test case for the city’s new process might be the Chris Alessandra case (low approach"violation") that was "postponed" last fall.

Torrance Municipal Code §13.4.7 (Duties of the Airport Commission) states that "The Commission shall address all airport noise-related issues and shall advise the City Council on noise mitigation measures."  To my knowledge, the Airport Commission has not been consulted or even advised on these proposed changes to the Airport Noise Hearing process.

 

Torrance Airport Family Days Pancake Breakfast

11/12/2024   9 am - 12 pm.  Info Here.

 

Measure TC Passes. 

1/05/2024   Submitted to SCAUWG.ORG:  "Torrance passed measure TC.  There is no more airport fund, and all airport revenue goes to general fund for whatever purpose they want." - GP    One can read certain measure TC details in a Daily Breeze Report HERE.

 

Project Status Update 

11/2/2024  Hangar Painting  -  Report by Jim Gates

The East-Ts are getting a face-lift. The peeling paint on some of the hangars has been repaired over the past week--a great improvement in the looks of the East-Ts. Next, maybe a taxi lane resurfacing to reduce the sand-induced erosion of propellers?

Runway Closure

In order to install some FAA equipment, the north runway 29R/11L will be closed from 7 AM to Noon on Monday, 4 November. The south runway will be open.

Airport Noise Hearing Board

After being presented with a second letter outlining the illegal aspects of the Board's activities, the City of Torrance has given notice that the Board will be dark until early next year, over the last 12 months, 4 Torrance-based pilots were called before the board. They enlisted the help of Shaby and Associates, which researched the legal issues involved and wrote the letters. All of those hearings were canceled or "postponed."

Measure TC

A reminder: if you have not yet voted in the November 5 election, please vote NO on Measure TC. Besides giving City Council Members a 2,300% raise, it also repeals the Airport Fund and the requirement that all money earned from airport property be spent, as a first priority, on airport operations and maintenance. One can only guess what mischief the City plans if Measure TC passes and the airport loses its currently guaranteed funding source.

10/7/2024   Vote NO on the deceptive and costly Measure TC   -   Report by Jim Gates

     Measure TC contains a hidden poison pill

Measure TC amends the Torrance City Charter by eliminating Article 15. Article 15 accurately accounts for the receipt and expenditure of tens of millions of dollars every year to operate and maintain our airport. Article 15 also sets priorities for the use of the Fund and requires that all needs for airport operations, maintenance and development must be met before any of the funds may legally be transferred to other purposes.

     The airport is currently in terrible shape:

• Over half of the airfield lighting has been inoperative for over 4 years
• A key safety system is still missing 3 years after it was funded
• Critical runway markings are faded with age and nearly invisible
• Ramp areas are crumbling, causing dangerous damage to propellers

     Measure TC eliminates Article 15

Measure TC completely eliminates Article 15 and, with it, all requirements on how the airport is funded and all constraints on how the money is spent. Following Councilman Kaji’s proposal to study converting the airport property to a “planned development,” this is a very concerning move!

     Measure TC puts the future of Torrance Airport at risk

Without the protections of Article 15:

• The $40M currently placed every year in the Airport Fund can go directly into the General Fund and there will be no public visibility into how it is spent.
• Operation and maintenance of the airport will no longer be a priority for these funds. The airport, if it survives, will have to compete with other city demands such as the 2,800% salary increase for City Council (included in Measure TC) in addition to staff pay increases and other City Council pet projects.
• We can expect further deterioration of airport facilities and its decreasing viability.
• Torrance residents will eventually see the completion of Councilman Kaji’s dense residential development of the airport land.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE TC

 

City of Torrance - "Trending in Torrance"

This is an official source of information as published by the City of Torrance.  "Airport Matters" will reflect the City's voice.

         * Measure TC - Removal of Article 15 of the City Charter​

"The November Election ballot will have the Council-supported Charter Amendment that includes removing the Airport Fund from the City Charter to keep it consistent with all other funds, which are not listed in the City Charter.  The Airport Fund is not being eliminated from the City’s budget.  If approved by voters, the Finance Department will administer the Airport Fund as it does with all other funds in the budget such as the General Fund, Capital Improvement, Transit, Sewer, Water, and other Enterprise funds.  There will be no changes to the budget, budget process, or airport operations as a result of this proposed Charter Amendment."  Trending in Torrance - Status 10/03/2024

It is suggested by the TAA that this measure is dangerous for Torrance Airport.

An Explanation of Measure TC and why a NO vote is necessary. By Jim Gates  -  CLICK HERE.

"Friends of Zamperini Field Political Action Committee is fighting Measure TC, which removes from the City Charter the requirement that all money raised from airport property be spent on the operation and maintenance of the airport." - Jim Gates, site proprietor    The LA Times identified that the council in this measure is asking for more than a 2000% salary increase.  Should you be interested in finding out more about Measure TC and how to fight it, CLICK HERE.  - there has been a PAC formed.

SLING PILOT ACADEMY vs. City of Torrance

"A Torrance flight school which earlier this year won a preliminary injunction preventing the city from blocking renewal of its license has settled its legal action against the South Bay community.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin issued the injunction ruling on Jan. 12 on behalf of Sling Pilot Academy and had earlier handed down a temporary restraining order against the city. The academy’s attorneys filed court papers with Kin on Tuesday notifying him of a settlement of the case, but no terms were divulged. - The City Council on Dec. 12 denied Sling’s appeal of the decision to not renew its license. However, the academy’s attorneys maintained in their court papers that federal law is clear that only the federal government, and more specifically the Federal Aviation Administration, exclusively regulates flying aircraft.

“The (Sling) petition seeks to remedy an egregious wrong being perpetrated by city..."  Continue reading HERE.

Related links

• Torrance License Review Board denies flight school’s appeal
• Sling flight school, Torrance continue negotiating as judge delays next hearing to mid-April
• Torrance residents group pushes for unleaded aviation gas at municipal airport
• Torrance City Council rejects land use study that sparked fears of airport closure
• Sling Pilot Academy submits formal complaint with the FAA

Continued Legal pursuits waged by Sling Pilot Academy over policy still endure.  More to follow.

Edited 10/20/2024

 

Torrance Pilot Input & Correspondence:

"The biggest news is that the city has released a NEW Request for Proposals (RFP) for lighting.  The same stuff they started repairing 2 years ago.  The repairs were substandard, so they are starting all over.  The RFP is posted on the trending site.  They also say they are about to restripe runways and paint hangers.  That is on the site [Trending in Torrance]."   - GP 10/16/2024

 

The Airport Report by Jim Gates -  AIRPORT PROJECT STATUS -  9/28/2024
In August, I asked Mayor Chen about the status of airport projects and he referred the questions to Shant Megerdichian, Director of General Services Department. Mr. Megerdichian referred me to the "Trending in Torrance" website for answers and advised me that he oversaw all airport projects.
This month, I asked Mr. Megerdichian for an update and, again, he referred me to the website--which was unchanged from August. Below are the specific questions I asked:

AWOS
Torrance is the only airport in southern California without an Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS). Its installation remains THE top priority for airport customers, according to a recent survey.  

From "Trending in Torrance" website on 9/26/2024: “Design did not pass plan check as further specifications of the equipment are needed. Design vendor Lean Corp. unable to specify one manufacturer over another due to potential conflict of interest. General Services has solicited construction management services to identify an authorized contractor/ installer so that the equipment specification details can be provided to complete plans and be approved through plan check. Project will be awarded after approval.”
 What has been accomplished in September? None reported
 What accomplishments are planned for October? None reported
 What is the projected RFP release date? Unknown
 When will proposals be submitted? Unknown
 When will the contract be award be awarded? Unknown
 What is the projected operational date? Unknown

Some issues are delaying the project include the interface with ATIS and the FAA equipment. For example, will both AWOS and ATIS be able to operate on one frequency, how does the AWOS information interface with existing airport instrumentation and will AWOS be able to use the same phone number as is used for ATIS when the tower is closed. Answers involve several government entities.

TAXIWAY LIGHT REPLACEMENT
The Torrance Airport taxiway lights have been inoperative for over three years. Over the past year, nearly $400K has been spent in a failed effort to make repairs. Complete replacement of the decades-old system is now the only answer.

From "Trending in Torrance" website on 9/26/2024:
“8/22/24 - Staff is developing a design/build Request for Proposals (RFP) for the complete replacement of all runway and taxiway lights and signage. This will include removal of all existing lights and signs,which will be replaced by new LED lighting fixtures, signage, and underground wiring. The Airport remains open for overnight operations. The RFP is projected to be released in Q3 of FY 2024-25.
 What has been accomplished in September? None reported
 What accomplishments are planned for October? None reported
 What is the projected RFP release date? Around 2/1/2025
 When will proposals be submitted? Unknown
 When will the contract be awarded? Unknown
 What is the projected operational date? Unknown

RUNWAY 29R/11L RE-STRIPING PROJECT
Airport Manager Rafael Herrera reported that a contractor has been selected and repainting of the main runway and taxiways would take a total of 6 days to complete. The project would start in about 60 days (by the end of November). The airport will remain open, although 29R/11L would be closed for about 2 days for the paint to set. The south runway will not be re-striped and will remain open. Taxiways will also be re-striped in phases, with traffic routed around the closed taxiways onto the ramp. There is concern about mixing aircraft with autos and pedestrians, so exercise extreme caution.

NOISE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
An instructor from Pacific Skies Aviation (PSA) recently received a notice to appear before the Torrance Airport Noise Administrative Hearing Board for allegedly making a “low approach.” Like the Pilot Academy instructor who had been called before the Board some months ago, the PSA instructor engaged a lawyer. His lawyer wrote to Michelle Ramirez, Director of Community Development, and raised issues about the hearing board’s violations of Torrance Municipal Code, the California Code of Civil Procedure, the California Constitution, and Federal laws. The hearing was postponed. These issues had been previously raised with the Pilot Academy case and that hearing was hastily cancelled. As previously reported here, multiple courts have ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has the exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety and the efficient use of the airspace by aircraft. Attempts by state and local governments to regulate in those fields are preempted. Many Torrance ordinances conflict with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) authority involving takeoffs, landings, touch and go’s, stop and go’s, and low approaches. To learn more about this issue, go to https://www.torranceairport.org/myth/

CHANGE TO CTAF FREQUENCY
The TOA CTAF frequency will change from 124.0 to 133.075 in about 2 months (around December)—after it is published in the FAA's Airport Facilities Directory. Friends of Zamperini Field Political Action Committee is fighting Measure TC, which removes from the City Charter the requirement that all money raised from airport property be spent on the operation and maintenance of the airport.

*Edited 10/20/2024     You can view the original report as written by Jim Gates HERE.

 

The Airport Report by Jim Gates    CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS - 09/09/2024

The results are in.
127 airport customers responded to our survey:
 75% are hangar tenants; 10% are on tie-downs
 56% own their aircraft; 11% rent
 75% have been airport customers for 10 or more years; 55% for 20 or
more years
 5% are business owners

Here are the responses to the questions. A large number of additional written comments were also received:

1) As a Torrance Airport customer, do you feel valued?
9% YES; 91% NO

2) As a Torrance Airport customer, do you feel that you are treated
honestly?
28% YES; 72% NO

3) As a Torrance Airport customer, do you feel you are treated fairly?
28% YES; 72% NO

4) How would you rate the condition of Torrance Airport as compared with
other public use airports you have used?

Find out more about these topics, Airport Project Status, The Friends of Zamperini Field, and Measure TC, by CLICKING HERE.

*Edited 10/20/2024

 

NO Airport Commission Meeting Tonight!  - City Council Suspends Meetings for 90 Days!

05/11/2024   Some questions came up at the April 11 Airport Commission meeting about a 2-month contract for $427,888 (awarded April 11, 2023) to repair the failed airfield lighting system:
1)  After 13 months, why was the contract still not complete?  Staff originally reported that repairs would be complete by end of July of 2023.
2)  Why was the start of repairs delayed until the rainy winter (January 2024)--8 months after award?
3) WHO authorized the delay--and WHY?
4)  Why did the City Council--without any discussion on April 8, 2024, reward the contractor with an 8-month extension?

Instead of the repairs being done in the summer of 2023, they were delayed...      Continue HERE.

 

Lawsuit Vs. City of Torrance

4/22/2024   ZAMPERINI AIRFIELD PRESERVATION
SOCIETY, a California unincorporated
association,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF TORRANCE, a California municipal
corporation and ROES 1 through 100,
Respondents.

Read the text of the lawsuit HERE

 

Airport Commission 4/11 Mtg Recap 

04/11/2024    Read the report HERE

 

Torrance Airport Association files Suit in L A County Superior Court

03/05/2024   The lawsuit challenges the Landing Fee Ordinance

Read the basis for the lawsuit HERE.

 

3/04/2024

   Runway Use Restrictions

• Touch & Gos. Taxi Back, Full Stop-Taxi Back, & Low Approach

Reas Ordinance 3930: CLICK HERE

 

2/29/2024

Published Torrance Airport Noise Abatement Routes

Click Here to see the published Noise Abatement "Flyer."

 

Council rejects land use study

“The airport closure study idea has gotten no support, which we expected,” Peter Broen, president of Torrance Airport Association, said in a Wednesday interview. “It really wasn’t seriously considered, but I was very encouraged by some of the discussions about creating a plan for the airport going forward.”

Zamperini Field has been a..."   Finish Reading Full Article Here.

 

01/23/2024

   Letter: Amendments to Torrance Municipal Code Article 5

Read the Full Letter HERE

 

01/22/2024

(Link Not Active)

 

Torrance Flight School Wins Injunction in Business License Dispute

01/12/2024   Sling Pilot Academy, which in December lost its appeal to reverse the non-renewal of its Torrance business license, has obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the city from blocking renewal of the license.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin issued the ruling Thursday. He also had issued a temporary restraining order against the city on Dec. 21 pending Thursday’s hearing. - “Considering that (Sling) has annually received renewal notices for its business license in December and, consistent with the Torrance Municipal Code, been issued a renewed license upon paying its renewal fee, (Sling) had a right to renewal of its business license for 2024 as no validly enacted ordinance was in effect to prevent it,” the judge wrote.

 

12/21/2023:

   City of Torrance Notice to Operators Letter

Read the Full City of Torrance Letter By Clicking:   KTOA Notice to Operators Letter

 

12/18/2023

   City Letter - Landing Fees

Read the entire City Letter Here.

Torrance City Council denies Sling Pilot Academy’s license renewal

12/14/2023   "The Torrance City Council this week rejected Sling Pilot Academy’s appeal to reverse the non-renewal of its business license, citing no grounds for a hearing.

“The argument was that there was nothing to appeal, because there wasn’t anything taken away,” Finance Director Sheila Poisson said on Wednesday, Dec. 13. “Their license was not revoked. We basically said, ‘You are still operating ’til the end of December.’”

The owners of Sling Pilot Academy weren’t immediately available for comments on Wednesday. - The growth of Sling Pilot Academy in recent years has prompted numerous residents to express concerns about elevated airport noise levels. To address these concerns, the City Council on July 25 approved a number of measures aimed at regulating noise at its municipal airport. - Among the actions taken by the council was reaffirming a 1977 resolution that caps the number of flight schools operating at Zamperini Field at six. - There are currently 10 flight schools operating at the airport. Sling Pilot Academy is the seventh school to be issued a license from the city.

On Oct. 24, Sling and three other flight schools received a letter from the city informing them that their business licenses will not be renewed for 2024. Those schools may only receive business licenses if any of the currently authorized schools do not renew their licenses for the next year, the letter from Poisson said. - The letter also pointed out that..."   Continue Reading Here.