Last week’s crash at Whiteman Airport — a Cessna clipping power lines on Van Nuys Boulevard and flipping upside down in an O’Reilly Auto Parts parking lot — reignited the same tired debate that has been going around in circles for years. Keep it open. Close it. Build housing. Save general aviation.
Nobody is asking the right question.
I’ve been covering Whiteman longer than most of the people currently shouting about it, and I want to offer a different framework — one that might actually thread the needle between the airport’s legitimate defenders and the Pacoima community that has every right to demand something better than a poorly managed general aviation field that crashes into their neighborhoods with alarming regularity.
Here it is: Close Whiteman. Expand Barton Heliport. Give Pacoima its future back.
Barton Heliport, for those who don’t know it, sits on the southeast corner of the Whiteman property. It is owned and operated by the LA County Fire Department — not the airport, not the county’s Department of Public Works, but the Fire Department. It is where the county’s Air Operations unit bases its entire helicopter fleet — 10 aircraft, including 5 Sikorsky S-70 Firehawks and 5 Bell 412s, all operating from just 5.3 acres.
It is where, during the catastrophic January 2025 fires, Cal Fire brought in its helitenders, even as Van Nuys and Burbank were already maxed out with Palisades assets. Whiteman was the only facility close enough, large enough, and available enough to serve the Hurst Fire response.
That is the asset worth protecting. Not the tie-down rows full of derelict aircraft. Not the 68 percent vacancy rate we reported on earlier in this series. Not the Trifiletti Consulting contract that grew from $600,000 to $2.1 million while the airport’s infrastructure deteriorated. Barton Heliport and the Fire Department’s Air Operations capacity — that is what serves Pacoima, the San Fernando Valley, and the greater LA basin.
Consider the geography. The LA County Fire Department’s administrative headquarters sits at 1320 N. Eastern Avenue in East Los Angeles — on the opposite end of the county from where the Valley’s wildfire risk is highest. Its air operations, meanwhile, are based at Barton Heliport in Pacoima, in the heart of the northeast San Fernando Valley, precisely where that risk concentrates. An expanded Barton would not just preserve that positioning — it would build on it, giving the county a purpose-built emergency air campus in the right place at the right time.
So here is my proposal, offered in the spirit of cutting through a debate that has become more about politics than problem-solving.
Expand Barton Heliport by roughly 50 acres of the existing Whiteman footprint — nearly a tenfold increase from its current 5.3 acres. Build a proper control tower as part of that expansion — one owned and operated by the county’s emergency infrastructure rather than tacked onto a general aviation airport that may or may not exist in five years. The heliport already depends on Whiteman’s ATC for operations. Bring that dependency in-house. Give the Fire Department and emergency responders the facility they actually need, built for the vertical operations of the present and future — including the drone and eVTOL industries that are coming to the San Fernando Valley whether we plan for them or not.
A word on the FAA, which governs both Whiteman Airport and Barton Heliport as separate entities under federal jurisdiction. Nothing happens at either facility without the agency’s sign-off — not a closure, not an expansion, not a change in use. That is a fact. But it is not an obstacle.
The FAA itself, in a January 2026 letter authored by its own staff, outlined a viable closure process for Whiteman — meaning the agency has already acknowledged the airport’s future is an open question. Given Whiteman’s documented management failures, its 68 percent tie-down vacancy rate, and the derelict aircraft storage that violates the FAA’s Hangar Use Policy, there is no reason the FAA would reflexively oppose a proposal to replace a failing general aviation facility with expanded emergency infrastructure serving millions of residents. The agency follows evidence. The evidence at Whiteman is not favorable.
Then establish an emergency responder academy on the expanded heliport campus for the youth of Pacoima and the northeast San Fernando Valley. Aviation careers. Emergency medical technician training. Drone operations. Give a community that has absorbed the noise, the lead exposure, and the crash risk of a poorly run general aviation airport something tangible in return. Not a promise of affordable housing units that will take a decade to materialize. Real jobs training, real skills, real careers — right there on the site.
The remaining 130 or so acres of the Whiteman footprint? That goes to the community for the redevelopment conversation Pacoima has been trying to have for years.
This is not a perfect plan. I am a journalist, not a city planner. The FAA will have views. The grant assurances that federal money attached to Whiteman will have to be untangled. The Fire Department will have operational requirements that need to be met. These problems are solvable if there is political will to solve them.
What is not solvable is the current situation — a 184-acre county asset that serves a few hundred small plane owners, crashes into the neighborhood with regularity, and blocks a community from its own future, while the actual emergency infrastructure that serves millions of people sits on its southeast corner in a facility the public barely knows exists.
The January fires proved what Barton Heliport is worth. It’s time to act like it.
Stephen Witt is a veteran journalist who spent more than 30 years covering New York City, including the crack epidemic, the AIDS crisis, 9/11, Hurricane Sandy, and New York City during the COVID lockdown. He spent his last two years in the administration of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, including a year and a half in an emergency management division, where he successfully wrote a FEMA Mitigation grant and authored the first draft of a unified Human Resources Administration/Department of Homeless Services Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). He is the founder, publisher, and editor of Los Angeles County Politics.
Comments 3
Dear Sir, Are you aware of the FACT that this “terrible” airport as you have described it brings in more revenue than any of the other County Airports, and that income generated from WHP is distributed away from Whiteman and aids other County airports? Are you aware that the professional fiscal analysis is if that income stream was cut off, two additional County airports would have to close?
Are you aware that Air Traffic Control Towers are under Federal Control, not County?
Are you aware of the havoc that closing Whiteman would have upon the National Airspace System (NAS)?
Are you aware of the effect that closing Whiteman would have on other airports e.g. Van Nuys, and that the Van Nuys residents would be up in arms and Imelda Padilla’s happiness would be at risk, even if Monica Rodriquez would rejoice?
Consequently, do you know the importance of a Federal designated “reliever” airport? And finally, have you read the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) FAA Guidance with regard to closure requests for airports proposing non-aviation development when those airports have the benefit of perpetuity. A similar request was made by Bakersfield; It was denied.
Dear Mr. Berinstein,
Thank you for your detailed response. Let me address your points directly and honestly, including the ones where you have a legitimate argument.
You state as fact that Whiteman generates more revenue than any other county airport and subsidizes the others. AOPA’s Jared Yoshiki has made this claim and your organization has repeated it. I take it seriously. What I have not seen — and what the county has not released — are the actual Whiteman operating budgets or profit/loss statements for the past five to ten years that would substantiate it. I would note that your own organization’s website contains a reference to a Whiteman “predicted deficit” in the context of hangar revenues. If you have access to audited financial statements showing Whiteman’s surplus and its distribution to other county airports, I will report on them. Until then, it remains an assertion made by airport advocates, not a verified public financial record.
On the ATC tower — you are correct, and I should have been more precise in the column. Air traffic control towers operate under federal authority. What I am proposing is a county-controlled emergency heliport facility with FAA-coordinated tower operations — consistent with how Barton Heliport itself currently functions as a separately FAA-designated facility. The model exists. It requires federal coordination, not federal ownership.
On the Bakersfield precedent — this is your strongest point and I will not dismiss it. The FAA’s 2006 denial of Bakersfield Municipal Airport’s closure request, citing the perpetuity obligation attached to Airport Improvement Program grant funds used to purchase land, is directly relevant to Whiteman. The FAA’s language was clear: a change in local priorities does not eliminate federal obligations. I am aware of this. My column is a proposal for what the county should pursue, not a guarantee that the FAA will approve it. The January 2026 FAA letter to LA County itself outlines the closure process — meaning the pathway exists, even if it is difficult. The county must make its case to the FAA. That is the appropriate next step.
On the National Airspace System — I am aware of Whiteman’s designation as a reliever airport. I am also aware that during the January 2025 fires, when every available asset in Southern California was deployed, the aerial firefighting operations that protected lives in the Hurst Fire came not from Whiteman Airport itself but from Barton Heliport — a separately FAA-designated facility on Whiteman’s southeast corner owned and operated by the LA County Fire Department. I note, by the way, that in a previous comment on our site you stated Barton is “an LA County Dept. base, not an LA Fire Dept facility.” The county’s own website confirms it is specifically the LA County Fire Department’s Air Operations unit that is based there. That distinction matters to this conversation.
My column asks a simple question: is 184 acres of county land in an underserved community of 89 percent Latino residents best used as a general aviation field serving a few hundred plane owners — or does it have a higher public purpose? Reasonable people can disagree. But the answer requires public financial transparency the county has not yet provided. I remain open to the evidence.
Respectfully,
Stephen Witt
Publisher & Editor
Los Angeles County Politics
Dear Sir,
Perhaps you might consider the following:
1. Chief of Barton Heliport is on record stating the airport is necessary.
2. You already have a helicopter base with a federal tower.
3. Whiteman was actually a premier force fighting the HUGHES fire, not the Hurst fire, though the flight tracks indicate that HUGHES was NOT exclusive.
4. You are aware that it is a reliever, but are you aware of WHY it maintains that designation?
5. Have you filed a public records request regarding the fiscal affairs? Have you asked the Aviation Commission thAT question? – I stand by my very professional source.
6. That EVERY nearby neighborhood council supports the airport, and that “underserved” community via surveys CONTINUE To reiterate that position
7. That your alleged 89% of “Underserved” Latino residents you propose would be better served won’t be. A closed airport that serves property owners that signed escrow papers notifying them of the airport and residents that chose to move close to the airport would all be affected by closure. With regard to property owners, their property values might increase. That circumstance will ignite gentrification. Should you desire to argue in defense of those that you assert are underserved, know that their rents will be increased, new buildings, taller buildings will replace current structures (not only near the airport) but for miles away. Soon ONLY A FEW OF THE CURRENT RESIDENTS will remain; most forced out due to higher rental costs or building renovation.
8. And finally, you make the argument that the airport only serves a few hundred plane owners. CONNECT the dots! You also note you t=recognize the firefighting capabilities. Do only a few hundred plane owners benefit from that capability? Do the well over 10,000 free airplane rides for neighborhood kids benefit only the few hundred plane owners? Does alleviating congestion at Van Nuys Airport contribute to the desired set of affairs in that community as well?
9. And just WHO ARE YOU to propose who is important and who is not? Should museums be torn down because there are only a few that appreciate Picasso, or know who Leger is? Should golf courses be replaced with low-income housing because they serve only those who can afford to play golf? Should our national historical sites be torn down because there are only a few of them scattered around? Sir, I ask, just who are you to propose some people are more valuable than others? I ask, is there not enough of that mentality in our world that it should be brought to our neighborhoods as well?
When I was young, and that was a long time ago, I was told, “Kid, you have two ears and one mouth. That signifies that you should listen twice as much as you should talk.” That has always worked for me!
Respectfully,
Ron Berinstein
Director, The Southern California Aviation United Working Group (SCAUWG.ORG)
For decades, a Public Service Community Volunteer dedicated to providing opportunities for success
contactus@scauwg.org