CARLSBAD: Coastal airport poses challenges, official says
Weather, shorter runway a factor in some crashes
By PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer | ∞
An early morning flight comes in for a landing recently at Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. (Bill Wechter/Staff photographer) CARLSBAD ---- McClellan-Palomar Airport is safe, but has some quirks ----- such as unpredictable weather and a relatively short runway ---- that require extra caution from out-of-town pilots who might not be familiar with it, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said last week.
The spokesman, Ian Gregor, talked with the North County Times in the days following two crashes near Palomar Airport late last month. On Sept. 22, two people were injured when their single-engine aircraft crashed after departing the airport around 4:45 p.m. On Sept. 28, a pilot died when his plane slammed into a hillside shortly after an early morning takeoff.
The incidents bring the total number of crashes at or near the airport to eight in the last three years. Ten people died in those wrecks ---- the largest number of fatalities for any three-year period at the coastal airstrip since 1982, according to a federal crash database.
Residents who live near the busy airport have said that, in light of those crashes, airport officials and the federal government should do more to keep planes away from homes. Pilots are encouraged to follow a voluntary flight path that veers away from neighborhoods, but some homeowners want that route made mandatory. Noise has been a driving factor in that battle.
Airport officials have said a longer runway would give a larger safety margin to pilots landing in less-than-ideal weather conditions. Residents, however, have largely opposed that move, saying that it would increase air traffic at a facility that is already the busiest small airport in the region.
Pilot error
Though the two most recent crashes near Palomar are still under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, investigations for previous crashes have generally have named some sort of pilot error as a cause.
"According to the NTSB reports, weather, along with pilot's failure to respond properly to the prevailing weather conditions, were factors in many of the recent accidents at and around the airport," Gregor said.
He said that Palomar's coastal location can give pilots extra grief.
"Palomar is safe, but (it) can be challenging," Gregor said. "On the coast you see fog, you see low cloud cover, sometimes you see high wind speed."
In many of the crashes, weather magnified pilot errors, according to reports by the transportation board.
Fog and clouds have sometimes played their part in recent fatal accidents.
On Sept. 28, Giuseppe Puzzo of Lake Havasu, Ariz., crashed his plane into a hillside southeast of Carlsbad at about 7:30 a.m. The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but Puzzo, who did not survive the impact, was flying the aircraft in foggy conditions.
On April 29, 2007, a plane plummeted into the Pacific Ocean shortly after taking off from Palomar, killing the pilot and two passengers. An investigation concluded that the pilot became disoriented while flying through a 1,300-foot-thick cloud bank.
Gregor and airport officials said last week that, while weather appears to be a factor in many of the crashes at or near Palomar, pilot training and preflight planning should be enough to keep operations safe.
He added that, at 4,600 feet in length, the airport's runway is "relatively short." Runways at other airports that handle similar numbers of departures and landings generally measure more than 5,000 feet, he added.
Extra length, Gregor said, would have come in handy on Jan. 24, 2006, when Palomar had its worst accident since 1982. On that day, a two-engine Cessna 560 jet landed too far down the runway. The plane ran off the end of the airstrip and into a storage unit, killing its pilot, a crew member and two passengers.
A "probable cause" report by investigators concluded that the plane's pilot made an "improper decision to land with a tailwind," had "excessive airspeed on final approach" and failed to "attain a proper touchdown point during landing."
What to do
Without God-like power to control the weather, airport manager Willie Vasquez said last week that there is little Palomar can do to fix the situation. He said pilots are required to check the weather before approaching an airport and must be qualified to fly using only their plane's instruments when taking off or landing with low visibility.
"The crashes that have happened, the pilots were rated for instrument landings," Vasquez said. "There is not anything the airport can do if the pilots are qualified."
He said there is room to extend the airport's runway by up to 1,000 feet, an idea that he supports. But lengthening the strip would require excavating an old landfill just east of the existing runway, an expensive project and one that neighborhood groups would fiercely oppose.
Vasquez said that, with the exception of one accident, every pilot who has crashed recently at or near Palomar has been a "transient," meaning that they are visiting from another airport and are not based in Carlsbad.
Because they are not in their home airspace, Vasquez said visiting pilots can be less familiar with an airport's weather quirks. Still, he said it is the responsibility of each pilot to know their limitations and not fly in conditions they can not handle.
"If a pilot is qualified, we do not have any ability to tell them they can't use the airport," Vasquez said.
The number of crashes over the last three years concerns residents who live nearby.
Dwight Webster, who said planes leaving the airport regularly pass low over his home, said the drone of an aircraft engine takes on heightened significance in the context of regular accidents.
"Every time I hear them coming, I think 'Is there going to be a big crash?' " Webster said.
Mandatory pattern
Webster and many other Carlsbad residents who live near the airport have complained for years about the noise that planes make over their homes. They helped institute a voluntary flight path that encourages planes to head due west along Palomar Airport Road and out over the Pacific Ocean before they turn north, south or east.
The route, which Webster said is ignored by some pilots, cuts across a golf course and the edge of the Legoland California amusement park, but does not pass over very many homes.
Webster said that he and many other residents would like to see the route become mandatory instead of voluntary because it is safer than sending planes over homes.
Vasquez, the airport manager, said Palomar has no authority to make the flight path mandatory. All rules regarding airspace fall under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration.
He said the airport does what it can to discourage pilots from cutting north or south over neighborhoods right after takeoff.
"If we can identify them, that they're not abiding with our voluntary flight pattern, we'll send them a letter," he said.
Gregor, the FAA spokesman, said his agency would not consider a mandatory flight pattern unless it was requested by airport authorities.
In an e-mail Gregor wrote that, if asked, the FAA "would evaluate any request."
Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or psisson@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Typical.... wrote on Oct 4, 2008 5:20 PM:they buy a home knowing there is an airport close by, then complain, bitch and moan about it's operations and those noise generated by it's activities. Tough, the airport has been there in constant use for decades, and the people screaming would like to see it's operations end, or dramatically reduced or controled, for those complaining, shop for better locations next time you are house hunting where local, long existing facilities, won't effect your sensitive hearing, feelings, or general sense of safety due to the chances of a plane falling into your neighborhood....
paul wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:57 PM:Keep and improve the airport. Knock down and quit building homes there.
Karl wrote on Oct 4, 2008 7:55 PM:Location, location, location. I live on a golf course and there are actually people complaining about golf balls flying into their yards, go figure. This course was built 3 years before any of the houses.
June wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:25 PM:Well Cozad and Page, aren't you going to jump on this band wagon? God forbid people don't want this death trap next to their homes, just like Oceanside. Let's hope the city council doesn't come out against it...the out of town pilots will have to purchase another election like they did in Oceanside. Good luck homeowners, please keep the pilots, we don't want them in Oceanside.
Freedom wrote on Oct 5, 2008 9:17 AM:. . and why don't we eleminate those "death trap" freeways too, people die on roads every day.June, what statistics are you using in labeling airports as "death traps"? I feel bad for you living so afraid of things that
logically you shouldn't be. How selfish, and boring of you, and others, who because of ignorance want to take away something from others that is as awesome as the freedom to fly.
Safer for whom wrote on Oct 5, 2008 11:33 AM:The voluntary path is over Legolnd? To me,there is much more danger of people dying if the plane crashes into a crowded amusement park than flying over homes.
I near the airport, and planes fly overhead on approach/departure. It does not bother me. There is risk of death no matter what you do or don't do. And as someone else said, the airport was there before the house. I knew what I was buying into before I purchased the house. I love the convinience of having Palomar nearby when I do fly.
Please, don't make the voluntary flight path mandatory! I would hate to wake up one day and hear that a plane crashed into legoland and killed X people at the park.
CaptainKG wrote on Oct 5, 2008 10:39 PM:OK, here's the real problem; The pilots who are primarily using CRQ are simply not trained at a truly professional level. Just having an instrument rating does not necessarily mean you're a competent IFR pilot. In the big leagues (airlines) we train in full-motion simulator every few months. We also do not fly alone. Single pilot IFR is an accident waiting to happen, and it happens here...
CPO USN-Retired wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:25 AM:Hey June, bet you complain about the Marines and all the noise coming from Camp Pendleton too! Why don't you move somewhere else, a location where there is no Military, No Airport, No Noisy Freeway, No Noisy children playing - Hey! I have an idea! Pick a nice quiet farm in the middle of Iowa, away from everything. Arkansas has some nice quiet locations too.
Rational Thought wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:05 AM:You have to be a little off your game to complain about dogs in the park, cars on the road, or planes using an airport. The FAA could publish a standard instrument departure for pilots, and controllers could issue it to all departures. There are options for pilots, and the complainants. It's a shame both sides would rather argue about what they'd like the other side to do, rather than take action themselves.
Nick wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:20 PM:I have flown in and out of Palomar since 1968 and when it first opened in 1960 to replace the Del Mar airport (just east of the racetrack) that was closed to build I-5, Palomar was surrounded by mega-nothing. No homes, no businesses, no golf course, nothing. Not even road access from Highway 1. So the airport and everything it entails was there long, long, long before any homes, etc.
So anyone living or working or playing golf near the airport that isn't deaf and blind (in which case the airport wouldn't bother them anyway) HAD to have known about it before deciding to live there, work there, or play golf there.
And, of course, the airport was there when Lego Land decided to build directly under the departure path too.
One comment suggested the people that don't like the airport should move to Iowa or Arkansas. But they have airports there too. I think Pakistan, Communist China, or Venezuela have very, very few airports so that would be a better choice! Plus the governments do a much more thorough job of telling residents how to live their lives which is something the complainers seem to think is a good thing.
Bon Voyage......
RationalThought wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:33 PM:You have to be a little off your game to complain about dogs in the park, cars on the road, or planes using an airport. The FAA could publish a standard instrument departure for pilots, and controllers could issue it to all departures. There are options for pilots, and the complainants. It's a shame both sides would rather argue about what they'd like the other side to do, rather than take action themselves.
Nik wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:04 PM:As a pilot in San Diego I've flown out of every general aviation airport in the county, but mainly Carlsbad and Brown. Compared to the rest Carlsbad isn't really any more challenging. If its overcast enough to be IMC at CRQ it will most likely be IMC or nearly so at SDM and MYF also. I even did two flights to and from Carlsbad on September 28th under special VFR rules and there was nothing wrong with the airport that day!
There's nothing wrong with the airport. It's a valuable exit on our nations aviation highway system. It brings commerce to the local community and employs thousands. Airports are not renewable resources! There won't be more built were the hundreds that have been closed once stood!
I grew up near the airport, and it was those 'dangerous' planes flying overhead constantly that got me hooked on aviation and ultimately lead to me becoming a pilot and an engineer rather than a drug abusing wannabe rockstar still living at home.
SteveF wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:38 AM:I agree with Nik.. I grew up in Vista, and my grandparents used to take me to OKB and CRQ to watch the planes take off and land, which also prompted me to get my pilots license. You NIMBY types never cease to amaze me. You buy a house near an airport that has been there for 40 years and then have the gall to complain about it. Of course, you are the same ones that sue McDonalds after burning yourself with hot coffee.
Get ready wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:13 PM:They are going to lengthen the runway to the east, and that's a good thing. It will bring an additional margin of safety, and enable regional jets.
Do you think they are building a whole new terminal just for Skywest service to LAX? Think about it: most of the regional carriers are dumping props for RJs, and Lindberg is nearing capacity. We are going to need RJ service from CRQ to SFO, SJO, DEN, LAS, DFW, IAH, and SLC.
Not so fast willie wrote on Oct 18, 2008 9:00 AM:The problem isn't the runway length, the problem is the lack of a runway safety area at the west end of the runway. This is supposed to be an area 500' wide and 1000' long to stop aircraft in the event of an over-run. Instead, Palomar has a cliff. Adding runway east will provide no benefit because Palomar will not meet the safety area standards. All adding distance tot he east end fo the runway will do is provide more tak-off distance. Willie obviously isn't too familiar with airport design standards. Some manager. Makes one wonder how such a person can be in such a position.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement