SOME LAX QUESTIONS FAA SHOULD ANSWER.

Byline: RUTH GALANTER 

Local View

FOR two terrible days last week, LAX passengers endured confinement in immobilized airplanes, long delays in terminals, overwhelmed bathrooms and a whole series of similar insults. Most of these passengers will be happy if they never again have to pass through Los Angeles International Airport.

This supersized snafu had nothing to do with runway capacity or safety, nor with issues over which local officials have any control. It now appears that one federal computer caused the entire mess.

Luckily, Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion Blakey is scheduled to visit Los Angeles this week. But is Blakey coming to talk about how to make our airport run more efficiently? Not a chance. She has been invited by a coalition of local business organizations sponsoring yet another expansion of Everyone's Favorite Airport.

When Administrator Blakey arrives, she may land on a runway that airport officials keep claiming -- without a shred of evidence -- is unsafe. Ignoring the fact that the FAA itself only last year agreed that there is not a safety issue on the north side of LAX, advocates of expansion have been arguing for months that we need to tear down local businesses, impact homes, and spend well over $1 billion to move runways into Westchester and Playa del Rey because of "safety."

Blakey's upcoming visit offers LAX travelers, businesses and neighbors the opportunity to put this safety issue to rest and get on with making the airport terminals more efficient and comfortable for those who use them. Here are the questions FAA needs to answer:

If the northern runways are unsafe, why is the FAA allowing them to operate?

On the day Blakey arrives, an estimated 700 flights will take off and land from those runways. By allowing those flights, did the FAA put passenger lives at risk?

If the FAA is concerned for safety on the north airfield specifically, when will it call for a comprehensive federal study of that problem?

When airlines raised questions about safety on the south airfield, the FAA worked with Los Angeles World Airports and NASA on a two-year comprehensive study, including simulated runway incursions. Why hasn't the FAA done the same for the north airfield?

For at least the next decade, the few airlines that will operate the huge new Airbus 380 have predicted fewer than 15 flights of these aircraft each day, a tiny fraction of the hundreds of total flights currently operating each day at LAX. The vast majority of airlines will never operate the giant plane; the vast majority of passengers will never fly in one. One runway at LAX can already take the A380.

If the FAA wants to spend $1 billion for more runways for this handful of flights, who is going to foot the bill?

For over a year, businesses and residents threatened by this new "safety" plan to move the north runway farther into their communities have asked the FAA for hard data showing that there is a north airfield safety problem. The only available data show that almost all runway incursions are on the south runways, and that incidents on the north runways were caused by human error, not airfield configuration.

When will the FAA show us proof of a safety risk or go fix the real problems?

Administrator Blakey's visit is the perfect time to answer these questions, if only she will do so.