After a small plane skidded off the runway at Whiteman Airport this week and crashed through a perimeter fence into an airport parking lot, local officials once again renewed calls to close the Pacoima airfield, arguing the latest incident underscored longstanding safety concerns for surrounding neighborhoods.
The runway overrun on Tuesday, June 16, which injured the 77-year-old pilot after the aircraft’s landing gear failed, was the latest in a string of high-profile incidents involving aircraft operating to or from the county-owned airport in recent years.
Those accidents have fueled a long-standing debate over whether Whiteman Airport should remain open, pitting community advocates and elected officials who say the airport poses unacceptable risks against airport supporters, who argue it remains an important regional asset and should instead be modernized.
But determining whether an airport is actually unsafe is more complicated than simply counting accidents, aviation safety experts say.
“There are processes that we use when it comes to risk assessment,” Anthony Brickhouse, an aerospace safety consultant with nearly three decades of aviation safety experience, said Friday. “We don’t just have an accident or have a series of accidents and make a snap decision based on that.”
Instead, aviation safety specialists generally begin by comparing an airport with similar facilities, looking at factors such as the number of aircraft operations, types of aircraft using the airport and accident rates. They then examine the circumstances of individual incidents before determining whether an airport has a broader systemic safety problem, Brickhouse said.
That distinction sits at the heart of the debate surrounding Whiteman Airport, the busiest of Los Angeles County’s five general aviation airports.
Supporters of closures point to repeated crashes, the airport’s location amid densely populated neighborhoods, aircraft noise and environmental concerns. Airport supporters argue public policy decisions should be based on completed investigations and available data, and that modernization, not closure, is the better way to improve safety while preserving an airport they say supports flight training, emergency response and local businesses.
The debate has also exposed another reality: even if Los Angeles County wanted to close the airport, it could not simply shut the gates.
The Federal Aviation Administration said airports that accept federal funding remain subject to Grant Assurances requiring them to operate in a safe and serviceable manner. Because Los Angeles County accepted federal funding, including money used to acquire land for Whiteman Airport, the airport must remain open unless the FAA releases it from those obligations.
“The FAA has not received a request from Los Angeles County to close Whiteman Airport,” the agency said in a statement to the Southern California News Group Friday.
Tuesday’s incident marked at least the fifth high-profile aircraft accident involving Whiteman Airport since 2020. Those incidents have included a fatal crash near homes in Pacoima, a dramatic emergency landing on Metrolink tracks in which police rescued the pilot moments before a train struck the aircraft, another fatal crash near the 210 Freeway, and a crash this April in which a plane struck power lines before overturning in the parking lot of an auto parts store.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes the airport, renewed her call for the FAA to suspend flight operations at Whiteman Airport pending a federal safety review, arguing regulators have not acted quickly enough following recent incidents.
Horvath has sent multiple letters to the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board since April urging the agencies to investigate recent crashes, review pilot training and airport safety practices, issue corrective recommendations and temporarily halt operations pending a broader federal safety review.
“I do not have confidence that this federal government shares Los Angeles County’s sense of urgency for safety at Whiteman Airport,” Horvath said in a statement Tuesday. “We have repeatedly called for answers and corrective actions—we are still waiting.”
Los Angeles County Public Works, which manages the Whiteman Airport property, said Tuesday it supports Horvath’s call for enhanced FAA oversight, pilot training and aviation safety programs.
The department said Whiteman and the county’s other general aviation airports continue to meet applicable federal and state safety standards while working with the FAA and aviation organizations on existing safety initiatives.
Los Angeles City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who represents Pacoima and surrounding communities, also renewed her call for stronger action after Tuesday’s runway overrun, arguing county officials had failed to adequately address ongoing safety concerns.
“This morning’s plane crash at Whiteman Airport reminds us of the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result,” Rodriguez said in a statement Tuesday. “It’s shameful that the County has taken no meaningful action to protect our community after these repeated accidents which threaten our community’s safety.”
She said she would “continue to fight for accountability and the safety of Pacoima residents.”
Brickhouse, however, said the debate surrounding Whiteman Airport reflects a broader challenge facing older airports that have become surrounded by dense residential development over time.
“This isn’t a challenge specific to this airport,” he said. “We’ve seen that same challenge at a lot of different airports around the country and around the world for that matter.”
While that proximity understandably heightens residents’ concerns after an incident, Brickhouse said determining whether an airport has a broader safety problem requires understanding what caused each accident rather than drawing conclusions from the number of incidents alone.
“If I’m living near the airport, and I’m seeing a rush of accidents, a few of them being fatal, of course, I’m going to have apprehension about living near the airport,” he said. “But at the same time, I think it’s important that we treat each accident individually and try to figure out what caused the accident to happen.”
Supporters of keeping Whiteman Airport make a similar argument, saying the airport’s safety record should be evaluated in the context of how busy the facility is and the causes of individual incidents.
Whiteman Airport Coalition, which represents pilots, airport businesses and other aviation stakeholders, said in an emailed reply Friday that every aviation accident should be taken seriously but argued that decisions about the airport’s future should be guided by completed investigations and overall safety data rather than individual incidents.
The coalition said the airport handles roughly 125,000 aircraft operations each year while supporting flight training, emergency response, local businesses and workforce development.
Estevan Roth, a longtime Pacoima resident and member of Whiteman Airport Coalition, who has been based at Whiteman Airport since 2014, said the airport’s level of activity should be considered when evaluating its safety record.
“It’s important to put the number of operations in context when we talk about accidents,” he said.
Residents and community advocates who have pushed for the airport’s closure argue those explanations do little to ease concerns in neighborhoods where aircraft have crashed near homes, businesses and other community spaces in recent years. They have also cited noise and environmental concerns.
Pacoima Beautiful, which has long advocated for closing the airport, said it did not have anyone available for an interview Friday.
For Brickhouse, however, the debate ultimately comes back to risk management rather than the number of recent incidents alone.
He said the goal of aviation safety is not to eliminate risks entirely, but to reduce it to an acceptable level. Closing an airport, he said, should generally be considered only after safety improvements have been exhausted and remaining risks are still deemed unacceptable.
“At the beginning, you really have to study a situation and take a look at it. And putting any resources you can into that situation,” Brickhouse said. “And then if you get to the point where it’s just not getting better, then you would have to take a look at taking more drastic measures.”