By Stephen Witt, Los Angeles County Politics
Questions are emerging about whether Whiteman Airport is in compliance with its federal regulations — including hangar upkeep, outdated rents that may not meet federal self-sustainability requirements, and the presence of non-airworthy aircraft on federally obligated space — potential violations that could put LA County on the hook for an unquantified sum.
The compliance questions follow a January 21, 2026 letter from the Federal Aviation Administration to LA County — specifically from Cathryn G. Cason, Manager of the FAA’s Los Angeles Airports District Office, to Krystin Hence, the county’s Assistant Director of Capital Development — responding to the county’s own inquiry about what it would take to close the controversial airport in the middle of Pacoima.
The letter confirms that the county accepted federal Airport Improvement Program grants that carry perpetual obligations, meaning the airport must remain in operation until formally released by the FAA.
The letter also directed the county to FAA Compliance Guidance Letter 2022-1 — the federal roadmap for pursuing closure — and stated the county remains responsible for building its own case. Those same grant obligations that require the airport to remain open also require the county to operate it properly.
Under Grant Assurance 19 of the FAA’s April 2025 Airport Sponsor Assurances — the binding conditions attached to every federal airport grant — airport facilities must be operated “at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state, and local agencies for maintenance and operation.”
A separate provision, Grant Assurance 24, requires airport sponsors to “maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.”
Both assurances are part of the official FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances document, updated April 2025, and are binding on all recipients of federal airport improvement grants.
The FAA’s own Hangar Use Policy — last updated July 30, 2025 — goes further, explicitly listing “long-term storage of derelict aircraft and parts” and “indefinite storage of non-operational aircraft” among the uses that are not permissible at federally obligated airports.
These compliance regulations appear to be at odds with conditions documented in the county’s own $2.1 million study being conducted by Trifiletti Consulting.
A preliminary presentation of the study given to the LA County Aviation Commission in October 2025 found that most hangars at Whiteman are rated in average to poor condition, with only medium T-hangars meeting a good standard. Tie-down vacancy stands at 68% — meaning more than two-thirds of the airport’s aircraft parking spaces sit empty.
The presentation also noted that aeronautical rents across the facility need to be updated, and that the county’s airport system is projecting a $14 million funding deficit.
Additionally, the compliance questions come amid allegations that the airport has several inoperable aircraft on its grounds. The county declined to confirm or deny the claim when asked directly by LACP.
In written emailed responses to LACP’s compliance questions, LA County Department of Economic Opportunity Spokesperson Angela Herrera-Perez made several notable admissions.
Regarding rents, Herrera-Perez confirmed that the county has not updated aeronautical rates since completing a Rents and Fees Study. “Rents for the aeronautical use of hangars are not updated,” Herrera-Perez wrote. “A subcommittee of the Aviation Commission is currently evaluating the possibility of updating the aeronautical rents for hangars to ensure that the County’s airports remain self-sustaining.”
The admission puts the county in potential conflict with Grant Assurance 24, which requires rents to keep the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
Regarding non-airworthy aircraft, the county declined to confirm or deny whether any inoperable planes are currently stored on tie-down or hangar space at Whiteman. “There are no specific FAA regulations that prohibit inoperable or non-airworthy aircraft from parking on tie-downs at an airport,” Herrera-Perez wrote. “Such use would constitute non-aeronautical use of the hangar and the tenant would be required to pay non-aeronautical rent.”
The county never said no such aircraft exist at Whiteman — a notable omission given the FAA’s explicit prohibition on indefinite storage of non-operational aircraft at federally obligated airports.
Herrera-Perez also confirmed that no formal FAA compliance review of Whiteman Airport has been conducted in the past 24 months. “There have been no formal compliance reviews of Whiteman Airport by the FAA. The airports, however, are permitted and inspected annually by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to update the Airport Master Record, verify facility data, and ensure safety compliance on behalf of the FAA.”
The FAA’s Los Angeles Airports District Office, reached by email and phone, did not respond to LACP’s questions.
Roberto Barragan, executive director of ICON CDC, whose office is within blocks of Whiteman Airport and a leading advocate for its closure, said the compliance questions and the potential cost of bringing the airport into compliance — along with environmental concerns — represent a further argument for closure.
“The fact that Whiteman is operating out of compliance with standards, that the hangars are in bad shape, and that some people use the airport to park inoperable planes suggests it has outlived its usefulness,” Barragan said. “Plane owners are getting a cheap deal at Whiteman. All of that is unacceptable and should not continue.”
All of this comes as the Trifiletti $2.1 million study examines three possible futures for the 170-acre airport property: full closure and redevelopment, maintaining the airport with improvements, or a hybrid approach combining aviation use with compatible development.
The final report is expected this summer.
