CLIFY got moved

I got a phone call today that The FAA will be able to meet with us at City Hall. I don’t like that the FAA is doing private meetings like this as it seems they should be communicating more publicly. But, this seems like a great opportunity to reemphasize some of my requests. Turns out they want to show us a new map. It takes forever to get the computer in the conference room to be ready.

Part One: The Map


The New map with a more southerly CLIFY

The map is a little different. CLIFY has moved. We were just getting used to accepting the new route though Culver City’s historic downtown, over Culver Studio and into the Hayden Tract. Now its back farther south than SMO. The FAA brought their low-res map so we can’t see where it actually crosses Culver City and I’m unable to get into Google Drive on my phone to change my map. I silently wonder if they now understand the value of releasing waypoint coordinates. I map it later at home:

CLIFY Before ~ 1/2 mile north of SMO in Clover Park

CLIFY Before ~ 1/2 mile north of SMO


CLIFY After ~ 25ft from SMO










Part Two: Noise impacts by population

I re-ask the questions I sent in via comments: I think it’d be useful for further information on noise impacts by population. My objective is that I want to help the public understand what they can expect from the proposed changes so they can comment reasonably and not be surprised when it’s implemented. In addition I ask this question:

  • “What is the FAA doing differently in this proposal that will prevent the negative issues that communities such as Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, La Guardia, Phoenix, Boston..etc. had with Metroplex and RNAV changes”

They seemed quite fascinated with the Boston final EA excerpt that I passed out and promised to enter it into the record of the meeting.

Boston 33L Final_EA_Noise_Reduction_Excerpt.

Later I send a comment letter:


Mr Robert Henry & Mr Ryan Weller,

Thank you for visiting with Culver City representatives today. I have an immediate question about the CLIFY waypoint change.

In the “Updated 7/1 LAX_Proposed_Arrival_Procedures-West_Flow.pdf” document I downloaded CLIFY has been moved to N34° 00′ 36.64″, W118° 27′ 25.58″, as was mentioned in today’s Culver City meeting. In the prior document and presentation CLIFY was placed at N34° 01′ 01.35″, W118° 27′ 23.94″

Can you please confirm the CLIFY waypoint move and its resultant effects? Did DAHJR or GADDO ,which are east of CLIFFY on the HUULL STAR, move as well? With the CLIFY movement there is now a turn at DAHJR.

With this change the RNAV enters Culver City 2000 ft to the southwest- On Venice Blvd from the prior entry near Duquesne Ave to Overland Ave.

Previously the LAX HUULL STAR was a straight line from CLIFFY to GADDO (N34° 01′ 59.74″, W118° 17′ 55.25″) through DAHJR (N34° 01′ 37.83″, W118° 21′ 30.22″).

  1. Is the turn at DAHJR intentional?
  2. Do the DAHJR or GADDO locations need to be corrected as well?
  3. Since CLIFY is within 20′ of the SMO beacon, why not just use SMO as the waypoint as was done previously?
  4. Can you clarify why the change occurred? Was the original CLIFY placement an error or has there been a movement during the DRAFT EA Process?

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Stephen Murray