Aviation Conspiracy: Court Says Undisturbed Sleep Is A "Human Right"
Bill Mulcahy
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter136.htm
``A small group of residents has taken on the UK Government and won'' John
Stewart, English airport noise activist commenting on the European Human
Rights Court decision on night flights at London's Heathrow Airport
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
#136................................................Oct. , 2001 Past
newsletters can be accessed at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm Affiliated with, but not a
publication of, the U.S. Citizen's Aviation Watch http://www.us-caw.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Says: Sleep A "Human Right!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bill Sees It: (Editorial) Is This The Beginning Of The End For Night
Flights? In the midst of all the terrorism news lately there comes the
wonderful decision by the European Court of Human Rights on late-night
flights being harmful to human health. Could this could be the prelude to
the stopping of planes flying over American communities at night? It won't
happen right away, but I predict that this decision will have repercussions
around the world; because aviation is an international operation! Of course,
the Aviation Cabal, businessmen and their political stooges will fight this
decision, and may even get it reversed. They are already using the old
Aviation Cabal lie of claiming that aircraft noise is getting less because
planes are getting quieter; conveniently forgetting, of course, that the
NUMBERS of planes are increasing and they are flying over areas that they
have never flown over before. As anyone who has ever lived under the flight
path of a 24 hour-a-day operating airport can tell you, there is no such
thing as a "quiet" jet. However, the enemies of peace have already lost in
their effort to keep the issue out of the news. Listen to BBC news video of
the story on the web.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1575000/audio/_1575758_heathrow21_edmonds.ram
Will Next Plane Attack Be With Mail Bombs? Experts say that it is unlikely
that the next passenger plane attack will be done with teams of terrorists
because passengers would fight back. Another way of bringing down a plane is
with (barometric) bombs sent through air mail that can be triggered by
changes in air pressure in a planes cargo hold. Israel pressure tests all
packages before they are put on their planes for this reason. We don't. With
terrorist attacks becoming more sophisticated, we should.
European Human Rights Court Rules Against Night Aircraft Noise: LONDON
(AP) -- Londoners living around one of the world's busiest airports sipped
champagne Tuesday to celebrate a court's ruling that the rumble of jumbo
jets violated their human rights by robbing them of a good night's sleep.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, said the British
government should curtail flights between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. at London's
Heathrow Airport. Editor's Note: 11:30p.m. to 6 a.m.? Who goes to sleep so
late and gets up so early? Why not 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1574000/1574361.stm
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/uk.cfm?id=112907
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/3-10-19101-0-48-18.html
http://news.24.com/News24/World/Europe/0,1113,2-10-19_1088411,00.html
http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm?page=homepage§ion=home&article=1940
Ruling May Affect Heathrow Expansion Plan!
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,564708,00.html
Read The Text Of The Human Rights Court Decision: The European Court of
Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Hatton
and Others v. the United Kingdom (application number 36022/97). The Court
held: 1.by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8
(right to respect for private and family life and home) of the European
Convention on Human Rights; 2. by six votes to one, that there had been a
violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
Read press release issued by the court at:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/Oct/Hattonjudepress.htm
New Residential Overflight Route For "Reopened" Reagan Airport: The new
flight paths will take airliners over populated areas because the "river
visual approach" - a path used to mitigate noise - will be discontinued. The
river approach took airplanes far closer to Washington's monuments and
federal buildings, including the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon.
Sen. George F. Allen, Virginia Republican, said he hopes residents will
accept the additional noise as a small price to pay. "That's the sound of
America getting back to work," said Mr. Allen, adding that Virginia Beach
residents who hear planes flying in and out of nearby military bases say the
noise is "the sound of freedom." Read story below or go to:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200110311431.htm
English Leadership In Aviation Pollution Fight: Several of the UK's leading
environmental organizations like Green Skies http://www.greenskies.org/ ,
together with key airport community groups, outline a new vision for
aviation. This report argues that business as usual is not an option.
Far-reaching change is required. Current aviation trends are neither
environmentally, socially or economically sustainable. And they\par are
politically problematic. This report suggests ways of flying out of
trouble....Read the PDF (you need an Acrobat Reader) report "Flying Into
Trouble" at: http://www.aef.org.uk/PDFs/Flying%20into%20trouble.pdf
New Jersey: Teterboro's Air Fouled, But What's To Blame? The air surrounding
Teterboro Airport contains high levels of chemicals commonly found in fuels
and may cause health problems for nearby residents, said a report released
Thursday. The study found elevated levels of the chemicals benzene, toluene,
and butadiene, common components of fuel. The cancer risk posed by the
heightened levels ranged from eight in 100,000 to nine in 10,000, depending
on the amount of exposure, the study said. Read story below or go to:
http://www.bergen.com/bsouth/teterair20010058.htm
Russian Plane Crash: Was It A Missile Or A Bomb? (AP)
SOCHI, Russia--As Russians collected plane wreckage from the Black Sea,
Ukraine's prime minister Friday acknowledged the U.S. theory that an errant
missile struck down a Russian jet full of Israelis ''has a right to exist.''
Seventy-eight people--most of them Russian immigrants in Israel returning to
Russia for the Jewish Sukkot holiday--were killed when the Sibir Airlines
flight from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk exploded Thursday over the Black Sea.
While the Russians are investigating if terrorism is a possibility, U.S.
intelligence officials believe the plane was accidentally hit by a Ukrainian
S-200, or SA-5, missile--a large surface-to-air missile built to shoot down
heavy bombers flying at high altitudes.
The United States tracked the missile during a Ukrainian military exercise
with satellites that sense the heat of its launch, and officials said the
time of the launch coincided with the disaster.
Read story at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-crash06.html
Aviation "Consumer" Group Opposes Reagan National Airport Opening : "This
move would make the capital vulnerable to renewed aviation terrorist attacks
and would send the message that the U.S. is not really serious about
homeland defense," said Paul Hudson, director of the Aviation Consumer
Action Project. Editors Note: I was surprised to see that this Ralph Nader
organization come out against the Reagan Airport reopening. I was not
surprised they didn't oppose it because of the increased noise on
residential communities as they only care about aviation from a "consumers"
point of view. Ralph Nader is NOT an environmentalist.
S.A.F.E. Lauds U.S. Mayors Support For High Speed Rail: The September 11
terrorist attack highlighted America's reliance on air transportation and
the need for a more multi-modal national transportation system to benefit
consumers and businesses and enhance national security.
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1005-119.html S.A.F.E.'s
says it makes sense financially, economically and environmentally. For more
information contact on this and S.A.F.E.s opposition to Senate Bill 633
contact Dr. Frans Verhagen Phone, fax, email: phone and fax: 718-275-3932.
Ga...@rcn.com
FAA Security Chief Resigns, Not Jane Garvey: WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of
security for the Federal Aviation Administration is leaving his post and
looking at other opportunities, an agency spokeswoman said Friday. Michael
A. Canavan, a retired Army lieutenant general, had taken the job as
associate administrator for FAA's office of civil aviation security just
last December. FAA spokeswoman Rebecca Trexler called Canavan's departure a
mutually agreed-upon decision between Canavan and Administrator Jane Garvey,
who named him to the post. Editors Note: Why didn't Jane Garvey resign? Read
story at: http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011005/11/attacks-faa-security
Letter To The Editor On The Need For Small Plane Security: From Washington
Post Online: General aviation, which serves business and recreational
fliers, encompasses 7,120 jets and about 25,000 multi-engine aircraft flown
by about 200,000 pilots who have instrument ratings. Each of these larger
planes could easily be transformed into a weapon of mass destruction if it
were laden with explosives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19877-2001Sep24.html
FAA set to unveil El Toro report: A long-awaited Federal Aviation
Administration report on the flight safety and efficiency of the proposed El
Toro airport is expected to be released Tuesday, officials said Friday.
http://www.ocregister.com/local/topic01006acci.shtml
European Airport Security Better? BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Secret tests a
year ago found airport screeners in Europe were more than twice as good at
catching weapons passing through X-ray machines as those in the United
States, according to the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2001/oct/05/100507964.html
General Aviation Online News Sued For Libel: Editors Note: There is
something that I don't like about libel suits. Maybe because it infringes on
free speech. If a publication gets something wrong, they should only have to
print a retraction. Read about it at: http://avweb.com/n/?40b
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Aviation News Stories
http://www.ocregister.com/nation_world/3heathrowcci4.shtml
Jet noise defies rights, court says
It rules nightly hum near London's Heathrow is an infringement.
October 3, 2001
By CHRIS FONTAINE
The Associated Press
LONDON -- Londoners living around one of the world's busiest airports sipped
champagne Tuesday to celebrate a court's ruling that the rumble of jumbo
jets violated their human rights by robbing them of a good night's sleep.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, said the British
government should curtail flights between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. at London's
Heathrow Airport. Although the judgment is not binding, the government has
generally gone along with the court's rulings.
The decision could mean more lost business for airlines already hit hard by
fallout from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Other
European airports now face similar challenges and could be forced to curb
late flights, creating a ripple effect restricting travel across Europe.
Fewer flights could raise ticket prices, already expected to go up because
of additional security precautions, industry analysts said.
There was little sympathy for the airline industry from ClearSkies, the
group behind the campaign to halt the flow of jets roaring over their homes
in the middle of the night. Chairman John Stewart portrayed the ruling as a
David vs. Goliath victory.
"A small group of residents has taken on the U.K. government and won,"
Stewart said. "This ruling today has opened the way for residents' groups
across Europe to challenge night flying."
The court said although the British government does not run the airport, it
is responsible for balancing economic concerns with citizen rights. The
court awarded roughly $6,000 to each plaintiff and about $104,000 total for
legal costs and expenses.
"My initial reaction is one of surprised pleasure. We didn't know which way
the ruling would go," said Tony Anderson, 68, one of eight plaintiffs in the
case.
Heathrow operator BAA said it would wait for the government's response
before determining the effect of the ruling. The Department of Transport
said it was studying the judgment and would make no immediate changes in
night flights.
The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry was roundly critical.
"This ruling is a farce. The aviation industry is being discriminated
against at a time when it is most vulnerable," said the chamber's acting
chief executive officer, Peter Bishop.
Passenger travel plummeted after last month's terror attacks. It could drop
further if business travelers can't make early and late flights out of
Heathrow. Should the government decide to curtail overnight flights,
industry analysts say cargo flights and business travelers would likely be
most affected.
Cargo flights make up the bulk of overnight takeoffs and landings at
Heathrow, said Jennie Campbell, a transport analyst at London-based
brokerage Gerrard. "The airlines won't be able to ship that extra cargo,"
Campbell said.
Teterboro air fouled, but what's to blame?
Friday, October 5, 2001 http://www.bergen.com/bsouth/teterair20010058.htm
By DANIEL SFORZA
Staff Writer
The air surrounding Teterboro Airport contains high levels of chemicals
commonly found in fuels and may cause health problems for nearby residents,
said a report released Thursday.
But the same study -- which sampled air over a 48-hour period -- found the
results to be inconclusive. One problem: The airport sits near two busy
highways that contribute to air pollution.
The study recommended that a more comprehensive analysis be done over the
course of a year -- precisely what the members of a 12-town coalition that
funded the $47,000 study are seeking.
"We commissioned this report to demonstrate to state legislators that we
need the funding to conduct further study," said Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan,
head of the Coalition for Public Health and Safety. "We find the results to
be quite disturbing, but this report is not the final word."
Lonegan said his group will give the report -- prepared by Environ
International Corp. of Princeton and Groton, Mass. -- to state lawmakers
next week. The coalition also plans to hold a meeting Wednesday to discuss
the findings.
The coalition has pushed for nearly a year to create flight curfews at
Teterboro and is lobbying to shut the airport permanently. Neither is
considered likely to happen.
The coalition has said the noise and environmental hazards generated by jets
have hurt both the quality of life and the health of neighboring residents.
On Thursday, they added another concern to their list: safety.
"We feel that the security at this airport, given that it's in a congested
area, should be greater than at Newark," said Carlstadt Councilman Craig
Lahullier. "Some of the jets that come out of Teterboro can do a great deal
of damage. It's a very big concern."
Private flights in and out of Teterboro have been banned since the terror
attacks for safety concerns, although charter flights have been allowed.
Teterboro has no security checkpoints, such as X-ray machines, metal
detectors, or luggage screeners.
The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to issue new security
guidelines regarding the airport shortly, allowing it to reopen, Teterboro
officials said.
Officials from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and
operates Teterboro, were unavailable to comment Thursday. Most were
attending a memorial service for the 74 Port Authority employees killed in
the terror attacks.
It was unlikely they would comment on the report, anyway, a Port Authority
employee said, because it had not yet been given to the agency.
The study found elevated levels of the chemicals benzene, toluene, and
butadiene, common components of fuel. The cancer risk posed by the
heightened levels ranged from eight in 100,000 to nine in 10,000, depending
on the amount of exposure, the study said.
Environmental Protection Agency regulations say samples that show a risk
higher than one in 1 million require further study.
But the study was quick to point out that air samples were taken during only
a two-day period at locations near the entrance and exit of the runways.
It also noted that other nearby pollution sources, such as Routes 46 and 17,
affect the air quality. The report said it was not possible to separate jet
fuel emissions from auto emissions.
Residents and coalition members also had complained that a black "soot-like"
substance that appeared on cars and buildings was caused by jet fuel.
Researchers wiped surfaces and tested for chemicals but found no evidence to
support those claims.
Still, the report stoked emotions regarding the airport.
"We look at a black jet trail and we know that's harmful," said Lorelei
Koran, a member of the Hackensack Environmental Commission. "Now that we
know what's in it, it's scarier."
Several other studies of the airport have been commissioned.
A Port Authority study on air and noise will be conducted by the
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers
University.
And a study on the ability of Teterboro runways to handle larger,
commercial-size jets is being done by the Federal Aviation Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Writer Lisa Goodnight contributed to this article. Staff Writer Daniel
Sforza's e-mail address is sfo...@northjersey.com
Reagan Airport to reopen
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200110311431.htm
President Bush went to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport yesterday
to formally announce its reopening tomorrow.
"There really is no greater symbol that America's back in business than the
reopening of this airport," Mr. Bush said from a deserted terminal at the
airport. "By opening this airport, we're making yet another statement to the
terrorists: You can't win."
Said Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III: "This airport is a beacon and
a symbol of freedom, not just for this community but for this entire
nation."
The airport will open in two phases. In the first phase, which will
last about three weeks, 190 flights will resume to eight hub cities served
by six airlines. Destinations include New York City, Boston, Atlanta,
Chicago and Dallas.
In the second phase, 30 to 45 days later, direct flights to another 10
as-yet-undetermined cities will resume. Under phase two, there will be about
450 daily flights - about 57 percent of the number of daily flights before
Sept. 11.
"We're doing the right thing," Mr. Bush said. "We've taken our time. We
can assure the American public as best we can that we've taken the necessary
safety precautions. Now, it's time to start flying again."
In addition to armed air marshals aboard and new flight paths, the
airport will also:
. Limit carry-on luggage to one bag plus a purse or briefcase.
. Implement random checks with hand-held metal detectors.
. Expand police, including plainclothes officers, and canine units in
terminals.
. Require flight crews to be "dedicated" exclusively to Reagan Airport.
The new flight paths will take airliners over populated areas because
the "river visual approach" - a path used to mitigate noise - will be
discontinued. The river approach took airplanes far closer to Washington's
monuments and federal buildings, including the White House, the Capitol and
the Pentagon.
Sen. George F. Allen, Virginia Republican, said he hopes residents will
accept the additional noise as a small price to pay. "That's the sound of
America getting back to work," said Mr. Allen, adding that Virginia Beach
residents who hear planes flying in and out of nearby military bases say the
noise is "the sound of freedom."
Noise will be reduced somewhat because aircraft will be limited in size
to 156 seats, meaning the Boeing 737 will be the largest jet allowed to land
at the airport.
Members of the Virginia congressional delegation joined Mr. Bush for
the event. Rep. James P. Moran, a Democrat whose district includes the
airport, said plans also call for cockpit doors on arriving and departing
planes to be bolted.
Private planes are still banned from flying within 28 miles of the
District. Mr. Moran said efforts are under way to reduce the no-fly zone to
allow private planes to use Washington Dulles International Airport, which
is within the zone. Under the plan outlined yesterday, private planes now
housed at Reagan Airport would be moved to Dulles, and Reagan would remain
off-limits to private aircraft.
Reagan Airport employs more than 10,000 workers and normally moves
42,000 travelers in and out of the region daily. The Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority estimates that the airport pumps $2.4 billion a year into
the local economy.
"One of the things those of us who live in the area understand, this
airport is really important for the local economy, as well. There's a lot of
people, a lot of small-business people, a lot of people who service the
airport, obviously a lot of people who work here, depend upon this airport
being open," Mr. Bush said.
"And I understand that. And I appreciate once again your patience and
understanding, as our nation obviously is dealing with a tragedy, the likes
of which we never envisioned."
Pilots said the new plan is workable.
"We've safely flown in and out of National Airport for many, many, many
years," said Capt. John Cox, executive air safety chairman of the Air Line
Pilots Association. "We need to get that airport open. Every day that we
don't, we stand directly affected by the acts of the madmen."
But an aviation watchdog group had a different view.
"This move would make the capital vulnerable to renewed aviation
terrorist attacks and would send the message that the U.S. is not really
serious about homeland defense," said Paul Hudson, director of the Aviation
Consumer Action Project.
Mr. Hudson recommended that Reagan Airport instead be used as the
headquarters and training ground for the new Office of Homeland Security,
and as the base for Air Force jets flying over Washington.
Jeff Strickland
flying ...
How come people buy homes under the flight paths around airports, then
complain about the noise? Why do planners not designate non-residential
areas off the approach and departure ends of the runways? How come when the
planners do designate such an area, the developers seek waivers so that they
can build homes anyway? Why do people buy those homes, then complain about
the noise?
In a vast majority of cases, the runways were build miles outside of town so
that nobody would be affected by the noise, but over the years developers
have encroached ever closer to the fences surrounding the airports. Those
that buy these homes should be jailed for being so stupid. If people
wouldn't buy these cut-rate homes, then the developers wouldn't build them.
But, the developers put up the cracker boxes with lower than average prices
and people buy them. I agree that they could be suffering from noise
pollution, but they brought it upon themselves.
We have had this discussion many times in the past, and it seems you keep
coming back to the same issues. You never propose a solution, you just harp
on the problem. You tend to harp on the wrong side of the problem, if you
believe the runways went in years before the homes. Airport noise is not a
problem for me because I made sure the nearest approach path was miles away,
and I am to the side of the runway, not off of one of its ends.
"Bill Mulcahy" <rock...@hvi.net> wrote in message
news:ts2384o...@corp.supernews.com...