The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chair Wade Richmond.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the August 28, 2003 and November 20, 2003 were approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Chair Richmond reported that Manager Propst requested the agenda be modified to begin with hearing public comments.

Ted Mourdant, Fullerton, discussed his concerns about formation flying conducted by Air Combat USA, Inc. over his neighborhood. He described where he lived and explained his residence was relatively in line with runway 24. He explained he was a supporter of aviation, and his comments were in the interest of safety. He gave committee members a handout, which included a copy of an email from him and a map, which were sent to the City of Fullerton and Air Combat U.S.A. He explained the first occurrence of Air Combat flying over his home was Saturday, February 14, 2004, next was Sunday, February 15, 2004, and then more recent was Saturday February 28, 2004, when he photographed the planes. He showed the committee his photos, said the weather was sunny, the planes were photographed at about noon, and he could not estimate the altitude of the planes, but his perception was that the planes were too lownot flying friendly, while other slower planes flying over his home appeared to be flying at a higher altitude than the Air Combat planes; they were flying friendly. Mourdant referenced a message he received from Jim Neubauer, Chief Pilot, Air Combat U.S.A., Inc., in response to his email.

Chair Richmond inquired about one of the photos, asking what the planes were doing as they appeared to be in a diving position.

Mr. Mourdant explained that the planes were descending from the northeast, setting up for landing.

Member Leigh Jacobs verified the location of Mr. Mourdants neighborhood and the flight path of the aircraft over that area, and he asked if the planes were circling and descending when Mr. Mourdant saw the planes. Mourdant affirmed that they were. Jacobs then asked for clarification about his concerns, if he was particularly concerned about the planes flying in a formation as opposed to a non-formation pattern. Mourdant referred back to his email, which respectfully asked that the planes not fly in low altitude formations. He explained he felt that two planes flying formation at low altitudes was riskyunfriendly, even despite the expertise of the pilots flying the planes. Mourdant said the planes appeared too close to each other (parallel).

Member Jacobs asked if the planes were noisy, to which Mr. Mourdant replied they were. Jacobs then asked which Mourdant noticed more, the pitch or the volume. Mourdant stated the pitch made the noise recognizable and the volume was loud just after the planes flew overhead.

Member Jacobs asked Mr. Mourdant what the weather was like on the day he observed the Air Combat planes on February 28, 2004, to which Mourdant said it was clear and sunny; perfect flying weather. Jacobs inquired further as to what specific concerns Mr. Mourdant had about the planes flying in formation. Mourdant explained, despite the pilots flying experience and expertise he believed their actions were dangerous, especially over residential areas. Jacobs asked him which was his main concern, the altitude or the tightness of the formation of the planes. Mourdant explained he could not determine how far apart the planes were to each other, but visually it appeared the planes were very close. Jacobs then asked Mourdant about the vertical displacement of the planes, if one was higher than the other was. Mourdant said one appeared somewhat higher, but both planes were in a banking turn and the wings of both planes were in a straight line to one another. Jacobs asked Mourdant about the fore and aft positions, if one was more ahead of the other. Mourdant said he could not tell because he while he was taking four photos with his digital camera at the time.

Chair Richmond interjected that the committee could not take action, investigate, or conduct a public hearing on the issue brought up by Mr. Mourdant because it was not an agenda item, and he asked the committee if the issue should be agendized for a future meeting.

Manager Propst explained that there was a person in the audience from Air Combat USA, Inc. who wanted to speak to the issue brought up by Mr. Mourdant.

Chair Richmond stated it was not a public hearing; therefore, the committee could not hear a rebuttal. A discussion ensued. The committee agreed to hear from the Air Combat representative.

Manager Propst clarified that the committee was required to hear all public comments, but they could not take any action on any issues brought up during discussion. A discussion ensued. Propst expressed, from a staff perspective, having both Mourdant and a representative from Air Combat show up to the meeting for discussion on the matter was positive. Propst added, because of the nature of the issue, at some point the committee would have an obligation to address it; it was good business practice for Air Combat to speak on the issue from their perspective. Propst suggested they could agenize the issue for the next meeting, and he offered to give a presentation about Air Combats standard operating procedures and he would provide a staff report to the committee.

Chair Richmond interjected that the committee agreed unanimously to hear from Air Combat, as a public comment, acknowledging no action could be taken on the matter.

Jim Neubauer, Chief Pilot, Air Combat USA, Inc., Fullerton, introduced himself, and in response to Mr. Mourdants concerns explained the following: neither he nor any other Air Combat pilot would do anything to jeopardize their own pilots license because of how highly they valued their licenses; they were sober pilots with extensive aviation experience; the way they must fly into the Fullerton Airport had changed since September 11, 2001; since then, a temporary flight restriction (TFR) had been imposed that did not allow any aircraft to fly below 3,000 feet within three nautical miles of Disneyland, which meant they had to maneuver north of the airport, over Mourdants neighborhood, instead of what they used to fly, which was south. Neubauer explained in detail how Air Combat conducted their maneuvers when returning to the Fullerton Airport.

Member Jacobs asked and received clarification from Mr. Neubauer about the altitude Air Combat flew over the airport when making their descending right-hand turn, north-eastbound over the airport; descended from 1,500 feet to 1,100 feet heading for runway 24.

Mr. Neubauer continued by explaining the positioning of the aircraft, while in formation coming into the Fullerton Airport; the planes were not [as it appeared from ground level] next to each other, they were stepped down and aft 45 degrees.

Member Jacob, referring to photos received by the committee from Mourdaunt, asked Mr. Neubauer what the distance was between the Air Combat planes, at their closest point (wing-tip to wing-tip).

Mr. Neubauer stated he did not know; he would have to measure; guessed the planes in the photo were about 15-30 feet apart; said the passenger in his aircraft was not uncomfortable with the distance; and explained the plane he was in was offset, back-aft, and out from the other plane.

Member Jacobs asked and received clarification from Mr. Neubauer about other possible options for approaching Fullerton Airport from south, none of which were acceptable options.

Member Hynes asked and received a response from Neubauer about the time-frame from when Air Combat planes traveled between Knotts Berry Farm and the area north of the airport, which was about one minute and a half.

Mr. Neubauer explained that some days (especially during the week) the Fullerton tower turned them in to the airport on a one-mile initial (the right-hand turn to approach the airport), but on the previous Saturday they were extended out two to three miles on the initials because of increased traffic arriving straight in to runway 24. He explained a legal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approach, the localizer approach at 2.6 miles, which requires planes to fly an altitude of 880 feet, or above the ground about 780 feet; and he said Air Combat planes descended at 1,500 feet.

Member Jacobs, referring to photos received by the committee from Mr. Mourdant, asked Neubauer if Air Combat planes were above 1,100 feet.

Mr. Neubauer explained Air Combat planes were above 1,100 feet; however, when coming in for a straight-in approach, they descended below pattern altitude, which was the FAA approved localizer approach straight-in to runway 24. Neubauer said their planes never descended below pattern altitude (1,100 feet) when breaking overhead the airport (making the hard turn to the left). He further explained that the procedure they followed to land at the airport was developed by the Navy for planes to land on an aircraft carrier (also adopted by the Air Force), to get planes recovered as quickly as possible (as opposed to dragging out a landing pattern over specific areas, especially houses). Air Combat used this procedure, and the Fullerton tower approved of it, because it expedited landing multiple aircraft; and if and engine on one other their planes quit, its higher altitude and fast speed would allow the pilot to fly it to the airport. Neubauer expressed he felt this procedure was a much safer pattern than the standard procedure, and because formation flying did require special skills, the FAA had given Air Combat a waiver to conduct this operation while flying with paying passengers; the waiver was renewed every two years once the FAA inspected Air Combats planes and training program.

Member Jacobs asked and received clarification from Mr. Neubauer about the position of his plane in the formation, that while flying as the number two pilot, he looked at the leaders plane, and the leader looked out ahead, and depending on what side the other plane is one, he switched positions to look out his window and watch the other plane and pilot.

Mr. Neubauer, in closing, read aloud a recent article published about the Air Combat organization. The article reported Air Combat had an accident rate of about half of private aviation overall, according to the FAA. Neubauer reported Air Combat never had a serious accident or fatality; they would not have been in business if they had. He thanked the committee and invited Mourdant to sit in on an Air Combat briefing, which Neubauer said was a time they [Air Combat staff/pilots] explained to their customers that safety was a highest priority, and that wanted to be sure to have an even number of take-offs and landings.

Chair Richmond asked Mr. Neubauer if he wanted to meet with Air Combat or contact the committee in the future.

Mr. Neubauer stated he had no further comments.

Manager Propst told Mr. Neubauer that the committee could ask Air Combat to give a presentation at a future Noise and Safety Committee meeting, if he was interested in learning more about their operations. Propst added, in his dealings with airport tenants, Air Combat was extremely responsive, they had a professional attitude, and he was confident that they conducted a good business.

Chair Richmond turned the discussion over to the committee.

Member Hynes said unless Mourdant wanted to pursue the issue further, the committee had heard all they needed to hear.

Member Harris asked Mourdant when he first began noticing Air Combat operations (while living at his current address for 16 years), to which Mourdant said it had been about ten years that he noticed Air Combat planes; but during the past year, and especially recently, he had observed them [conducting the operations he expressed concern about during the committee meeting].

Chair Richmond closed discussion and thanked the public for their comments.

OLD BUSINESS

1. NOISE AND OPERATIONS REPORT/AIRPORT INCIDENTS

   Manager Propst, in a PowerPoint presentation, discussed airport operations. He stated that the operations count for Fullerton Airport during the past twelve months was the lowest it had been in several years, and said he did not have an explanation other than high fuel prices and the recovering economy.

   He reported on operations as follows:

   • December 2002 7,507 operations
   • December 2003 6,745 operations
   • January 2003 7,737 operations
   • January 2004 6,911 operations
   • February 2003 7,296 operations
   • February 2004 5,920 operations
   • February 2003 February 2004 (12 consecutive months) 87,251

   Manager Propst reported on noise and safety complaints; there had been 11 complaints for the period of November 20, 2003 through March 3, 2004, as compared to 7 complaints during the same period in 2002-03. He discussed the importance of the breakdown by city of the number of complaints shown in his presentation. He discussed 11 individual complaints in detail for the period of November 20, 2003 through March 3, 2004.

   Member Barclay excused himself and left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

   Manager Propst continued to report on noise and safety complaints.

   Manager Propst interjected that he planned that day to provide the committee with a rough draft of the committees annual report of noise and safety issues for 2003, which was required by the committees charter to be given to the Buena Park and Fullerton City Councils, but Propst had no time to prepare it. He further explained the purpose of the document and the process by which he intended to prepare and distribute the document, which was: to prepare a draft, mail it to the committee for review, receive it back with comments from committee members, finalize the draft, and send to the Councils. Propst explained having only recently read the committees charter, this would be the first report sent since he began as airport manager.

   Manager Propst continued discussing noise and safety complaints.

   Secretary Rossetti interjected to explain how she had prepared the portion of the PowerPoint presentation that he was about to review.

   Manager Propst continued discussion noise and safety complaints. When discussing a complaint by Mr. Mourdant [whom had spoken during public comments], Propst commended him for attending the meeting to speak about his concerns, and expressed gratitude for Air Combats input, particularly for explaining the effects of the Disneyland TFR on their operations (the TFR having been a topic of concern for the Airport Advisory Committee).

2. AIRPORT MONTHLY SAFETY INSPECTION

   Manager Propst discussed airport monthly safety inspections; no inspections were conducted in January and February 2004, and Wade Richmond conducted the February inspection.

   Chair Richmond spoke up and received a response from Manager Propst about the Toyota dealer [balloons flying too high (approx. 500 feet) over the dealership] not far from the airport; Buena Park police had recently addressed the issue in response to a request by airport staff.

   Manager Propst received an affirmative response from Member Harris after asking him to conduct the next monthly safety inspection.

   Member Jacobs asked and received a response from Manager Propst about the drainage at the airport during the recent rain storms; it was good, in fact, it had not been until recently that there was enough rain to gather, during daytime hours, a sample for analysis [for government required storm water monitoring].

   Manager Propst reported the design process for constructing three wash racks had begun and was proposed to be completed late next year [2005]; once completed, all aircraft would be required to be washed in a wash rack (with an oil/water separator to capture pollutants) to protect the storm water runoff.

   Member Hynes asked and received clarification from Manager Propst about funding for the wash rack project (storm drainage improvements); funding would be primarily from the FAA, it was assured, and State funding would probably not be available.

   -Public Comments on Individual Complaints None.

3. FAPA REPORT

   Manager Propst reported that the Fullerton Airport Pilots Association (FAPA) had been trying to revitalize their organization with two major future events planned: a spot landing contest [May 2004], and an airport [aviation] swap meet [June 2004]. He commented favorably about the committee; it allowed him to have a connection with airport pilots concerning issues that needed to be resolved at the airport; and he was pleased at their efforts to sustain their organization.

4. MANAGER'S AIRPORT UPDATE

   Manager Propst reported on the airport budget; said at the next committee meeting he would review the current budget; and said it was the same as it had been from the last budget cycle (a million dollar enterprise).

   Manager Propst reported he received notice from the FAA that some instrument approach minimums would be changed because of some obstructions in the area.

   Manager Propst announced that he received notice from the FAA that would allow the City/Airport to move forward with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearances for the Master Plan [Fullerton Municipal Airport Master Plan Update]. He mentioned he would provide the committee with a copy of the letter from the FAA in response to his letter asking to continue to use the existing Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). He discussed this issue in detail, how the Master Plan Update dictated the need to change the RPZs, what he requested the FAA to approve, their response, and his opinion about their response. He explained that height restrictions on the east and west end of the airport would be added, and that he was no longer concerned about land use issues that might have lead to a lawsuit by Buena Park. He told Jay Salzburg, Buena Park, he would provide him a copy of the FAA letter. He explained the process by which the City would review the CEQA clearances, the Master Plan Update, and resulting General Plan changes; they would be reviewed by the City of Fullertons Transportation and Circulation Commission, the Planning Commission, and then to the City Council to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (which would allow the airport to be conditionally excused from certain environmental requirements).

   Chair Richmond asked if there were questions from the committee.

   Manager Propst added he applied for land acquisition funding to purchase avigation easements (to give landowners financial compensation) over the parcels that would be affected by new height restrictions [imposed as a result of the Master Plan Update].

NEW BUSINESS

1. FULLERTON AIRPORT NOISE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

   Manager Propst reiterated from his previous discussion about the Fullerton Airport Advisory Committee Annual Report for 2003], that he would provide the committee with a draft of the report. He explained the report would contain data about airport operations, a chart showing the number of complaints by frequent callers (redundant calls), a breakdown showing complaints by city, and a monthly breakdown of noise complaints. He interjected that he had projected there would be about 50 noise complaints in 2003, there were 51. He reported on airport accidents and incidents; there were 10 incidents/accidents with no injuries or fatalities (flat tires, landing gear problems, minor accidents); in 2003 there were 1,487 general aviation accidents nation-wide, down from 1,716 in 2003, and annual accident rate of 6.56 per 100,000 hours in 2002 (most current data); said the FAA forecasted (to be included in the report) 31.2 million hours would be flown by general aviation pilots in 2006 (there were 29.5 million hours flown in 2002); said as of 2002 there were 211,000 active general aviation aircraft, the projection for 2006 is 217,100; and growth in general aviation was relatively moderate, while the total accidents in 2003 was significantly less than in 2002. He reiterated his plan for processing and distributing the report.

   COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE

   Member Jacobs asked and received clarification from Manager Propst about Kims Flight Academy, which catered to flight training for Korean student pilots. The business was formerly a sub-tenant of Rays Flying Club, Inc., but left and began operating as a sub-tenant of Chuck Street (Cardinal Air Services, Inc.)

   Manager Propst added the City of Fullerton/Fullerton Airport was in litigation, and would be going to trial, over an unlawful detainer to evict Rays Flying Club, Inc. A short discussion ensued.

   Member Fraim, who said he was in the [property] management business, inquired and received clarification by Manager Propst about the qualifications of the attorneys for the City. Propst explained the issues related to the case were complicated; said the City Council gave very specific directions to him about what they wanted done about Rays Flying Club; and Propst endorsed the two attorneys representing the City of Fullerton saying they were probably the best and brightest the City Attorneys Office had.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Richmond adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The next regular quarterly meeting was scheduled for Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California.