Will Rogers' column titled "We could have done a whole lot better," in the Nov. 13 edition of the Burbank Leader, caught my eye.

Mr. Rogers is to be congratulated for his factual and succinct effort to summarize in a few short paragraphs the history of both the actions and the inactions surrounding efforts of public officials and the citizens of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, to mutually agree upon a reasonable development plan for the Burbank Airport.

Mr. Rogers sounded a note of sincere frustration when he stated that after the passing of 24 years, and despite a wide range of development plans, all of which were rejected, we are in about the same position that existed on the date of purchase.

He commented that during the passing years, many well-intentioned efforts and large amounts of public funds have been utterly wasted. He also noted that while noise and other matters are issues of major concerns, some Burbankers are less concerned about the terminal's proximity to runways. That comment sounded the alarm bell.

I consider the runway proximity to be a matter of the gravest concern; the status quo should not be allowed to prevail, and "forever" is not an option. The Airport Authority should not be permitted to abandon its role of continuing to seek solutions. Much can be gleaned from those past years, which could lead to a renewed planing direction and an eventual consensus.

On the date of purchase, there seemed to be such unanimity of purpose on the part of those involved - the state, the FAA and all local public entities. However, discord was not too far in the offing. The early terminal plans were considered too grandiose, and the efforts that followed met with criticism.

The FAA, which contributed $ 35 million to the $ 50 million purchase of the airport, should have scheduled dates for compliance to move the terminal complex, with severe penalties for failure to reasonably comply. The lack of such a FAA contractual "whip" removed the incentive for those involved to act with a sense of urgency in achieving the desired ends.

We at Lockheed were aware of the severe runway proximity threat years prior to the sale. During the intervening years, the larger, faster aircrafts have exacerbated the situation.

With the current airport configuration, a slight deviation in the path of a rapidly moving aircraft could result in a catastrophic crash into the terminal, resulting in the large loss of human life and substantial property damage. The Southwest Airlines incident ending on Hollywood Way should serve as a wake-up call to nonbelievers.

Such a happening would result in enormous liability claims on the cities and all involved. The loss of human life, which could have been averted if required relocation efforts had been taken, would bring shame to each of those involved in the years of wasted efforts.

Hopefully, airport officials and those of the involved cities will somehow join at the hip and the heart in launching a true and purposeful plan to solve this elusive riddle. It is a debt they owe their citizens.

David M. Simmons

Burbank, CA