Aviation Conspiracy: FAA Responsible For Skyscraper Crash?
Bill Mulcahy
Jane Garvey on the FAA's pushing more runways and safety reduction to expand
aviation on Americans
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
#149................................................Jan. 6, 2002 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
New Skyscraper Crash: FAA Responsible!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bill Sees It: (Editorial) Is The FAA Responsible For 15 Year-old's
Skyscraper Crash? So much for "homeland security!" The FAA has quickly
brought us from a time when no small planes were allowed over cities for
fear that they would spread Anthrax or radioactive materials back to where
children can easily steal a plane and crash it into 42-story skyscraper!!!
This time it was not a terrorist but a fifteen-year-old. However, it COULD
have been a terrorist who took the plane! One again this shows how little
the FAA cares about security in their zeal to return air traffic to highly
polluting, unsafe, delay-ridden, "normal" levels. To the FAA, the 911
terrorist attacks were just a statistical aberration which should be quickly
swept under the rug and ignored, like they have done so long with the health
impacts of aviation on Americans. More Evidence Of Aircraft Noise/Heart
Attack Links: I was watching one of the news shows on TV where they have a
doctor talk about health and I was surprised to hear him say people living
near airports have a higher incidence of high blood pressure. I scanned the
Internet for recent stories on this and sure enough there was a Reuters
story (see below) on it. Of course the study wasn't done in the United
States! High blood pressure also means increased risk for other life threate
ning medical conditions like strokes and heart attacks. Unfortunately, the
study dealt with blood pressure and not strokes and heart attacks. Are there
any U.S. politicians demanding that health studies be done around U.S.
airports because of this new information? Of course not, in New York and
other states they vote against such efforts!!! These walking pieces of
corruption are too busy expanding airports and taking "contributions" from
the airline industry to worry about little things like the health impacts of
airports. What About The Congressionally Mandated U.S. Noise Study? Does
anybody know what happened to Federal Noise Study which was included in the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AKA
The Airport Expansion Act)? It originally was supposed to done by the
General Accounting Office but was then switched (by congress sticking the
change into another unrelated bill) to the National Academies. It was
"supposed" to study little things like the level of noise that harms human
health? The last thing I heard was that the National Academies couldn't do
it because the Congresscriminals didn't allocate money for it. They have a
link on it at:
http://www4.nas.edu/ocga/publaw.nsf/4efad01e1c489cec852565e0001f69ad/b85bde5
9b57f8ea9852568c400666054?OpenDocument Other links are:
http://www.netvista.net/~hpb/pl106181.html
Aircraft Noise Increases Risk Of High Blood Pressure!!! NEW YORK (Reuters
Health) - Living under an airport flight path may boost a person's high
blood pressure risk by as much as 80%, according to Swedish researchers.
Writing in the December issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Dr. Mats Rosenlund of the Department of Environmental Health in Stockholm,
Sweden, and colleagues present their findings after comparing two groups of
people living near or far from the Stockholm Arlanda Airport.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011225/hl/noise_1.html
The U.S. Noise Study: From GAO To National Academies: The U.S. noise study
was switched from the General Accounting Office to the National Academies by
sneaking the change in the Airport Security Act Of 2000 (Senate Bill 2440).
What is its status now? Read the original bill language and change below and
also at: http://pages.prodigy.com/uzac16a/newsletter103.htm
Flying In A Small Plane Is VERY Dangerous!!! It is TWICE as dangerous as
riding on a motorcycle and more than 50 times more dangerous than flying on
a major airline. No wonder so many famous people have been killed in small
plane accidents. The media ignores these figures because they don't want to
say anything bad about aviation as it might affect their advertising.
Did Flight 587 Have A "Unrecorded" Accident In France? The US National
Transportation Safety Board has contacted Airbus Industrie, requesting
information for the probe into the crash of AMR Corp's American Airlines Inc
flight 587 in the Queen's borough of New York in November. NTSB officials
are trying to confirm whether the Airbus A300-600 involved in the crash was
blown back on its tail in 1987 by a violent storm that swept the Airbus
factory in France where the aircraft was being assembled. "It's not in
American Airlines maintenance records although that's not necessarily
telling because this apparently happened while they were still under
construction (in 1987)," a NTSB spokesman said.
http://library.northernlight.com/MD20020102300000015.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#
doc "Pilots" Once Again Being Blamed For Flt. 587 Crash: The N.Y. Times said
investigators are exploring whether the pilots - trying to control the plane
after it hit turbulence - may have put so much stress on the tail with their
maneuverings that it tore off.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42289,00.html Editor's Note: Of course
the "Times" doesn't investigate the fact that the FAA earlier last year
changed a rule which allowed Flight 587 to be closer to another plane so it
hit the turbulence!!! http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter145.htm
Airport Terrorism Fought With "30-Year-Old Weapons: WASHINGTON (AP) - At
airports, the war on terrorism is being fought with 30-year-old weapons.
Metal detectors and X-ray machines used to screen passengers and carry-on
luggage date from the 1970s, when they were deployed to prevent hijackings.
They can't detect plastic explosives, such as those allegedly hidden in the
shoes of a man aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight on Dec. 22. A passenger,
Richard C. Reid was arrested after American Airlines attendants allegedly
saw him try to touch a lighted match to his sneakers.
http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0102/02/news2.shtml
"FAA Jane" Garvey STILL Pushing Aviation Expansion: The United States
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is moving ahead with previously
announced plans to introduce new equipment, new runways and new air routes
to reduce future flight delays in spite of the fall off in passenger numbers
following September 11."Fundamentally, the plan remains pretty much the
same," FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said yesterday. "There is an assumption
that demand will come back, and we need to be prepared." Editor's Note: So
do we!!! http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/01/1010235727.html
Airline passengers to begin paying security fees: The cost of a round trip
ticket will rise as much as $10 next month as airline passengers begin
paying for security improvements. The Transportation Department said the new
security fee of $2.50 per flight, or $5 for passengers who change planes,
will take effect Feb. 1 http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0102/04/news.shtml
Editor's Note: Why aren't passenger fees paying for ALL airport security and
well as expansion p?
Attorney Dropped From Helicopter Noise Committee Because She Is Against
Noise!!! A Las Vegas attorney was bumped at least temporarily from a
committee assembled Wednesday to address helicopter noise issues. After
writing a letter welcoming Laura Fitzsimmons to the Advisory Committee on
Helicopter Noise, Aviation Director Randy Walker told county commissioners
he had concerns about the appointment. Read story below or go to:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2002/jan/03/512838074.html
More Chinese Banks Finance Maglev Train Project: Two Chinese banks will
provide loans of up to five billion yuan (602 million U.S. dollars) to fund
a magnetic levitated (maglev) train project in this largest commercial
center. The Maglev system uses powerful magnets to hold a train a few
millimeters above the track and propel it along with little noise or
vibration. Trains can run at over 400 kilometers per hour, as fast as a
jetliner.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/05/eng20020105_88067.shtml
El Al flight to London turns back after bird sucked into engine: A bird was
sucked into the engine of an Israeli jumbo jet during takeoff Sunday, and
the pilot made a U-turn shortly after liftoff and returned safely to the
airport, a spokesman for El Al said. The Boeing 747-200 jet was taking off
from Tel Aviv for London with 402 passengers and crew on board, when the
bird was sucked into the left side inboard engine, spokesman Nachman Kleiman
said.
Federal Judge Tells Puerto Rico To Go To Noise Hell: WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Puerto Rico that sought to
halt U.S. Navy training exercises on the island of Vieques, citing a lack of
jurisdiction in an order released on Wednesday. "We do not agree with the
judge's interpretation that the federal Noise Control Act does not provide
for a cause of action to sue in federal district court when federal
authorities violate local noise laws," Rodriguez said.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020103_57.html
FedEx hub gets approval for federal funding:
http://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/Story/900616p-900452c.html
FedEx hub might be delayed:
http://www.news-record.com/news/local/gso/39327.htm
Small jet headed for Maine crashes on takeoff at English airport, killing
five Americans BIRMINGHAM, England, Jan. 4 - A private jet bound for the
United States crashed on takeoff Friday at Birmingham International Airport
in central England, killing five Americans on board.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap01-04-082539.asp?reg=EUROPE
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Aviation News Stories
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011225/hl/noise_1.html
Aircraft Noise Linked to High Blood Pressure
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Living under an airport flight path may boost a
person's high blood pressure risk by as much as 80%, according to Swedish
researchers.
Writing in the December issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Dr. Mats Rosenlund of the Department of Environmental Health in Stockholm,
Sweden, and colleagues present their findings after comparing two groups of
people living near or far from the Stockholm Arlanda Airport.
The researchers compared 266 people aged 19 to 80 who lived near the airport
with 2,693 other Stockholm residents. All responded to a questionnaire that
assessed a variety of lifestyle habits, such as diet, exercise and smoking,
and if they had ever received a diagnosis of high blood pressure from a
doctor.
Rosenlund and colleagues report that people exposed to average aircraft
noise levels of 55 decibels or higher were 60% more likely to report having
been diagnosed with high blood pressure. Those with exposures exceeding 72
decibels were 80% more likely to report a high blood pressure diagnosis.
Overall, 14% of people exposed to less noise had high blood pressure,
compared with 20% of those who regularly faced noise levels of 55 decibels
or higher.
The findings suggest that exposure to loud noise is associated with high
blood pressure, which in turn suggests aircraft noise could increase heart
disease risk, Rosenlund and colleagues report.
``There is suggestive evidence for an association between prevalence of
hypertension and aircraft noise,'' writes Dr. Sam Pattenden, an
environmental epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, in an accompanying editorial.
However, the editorialist adds, ``a larger and statistically more rigorous
study is needed.''
SOURCE: Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2001;58:761, 769-773.
The ORIGINAL Congressional Airport Noise Study Mandate In "Air 21"
SEC. 745. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AIRPORT NOISE STUDY.
* (a) IN GENERAL- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a study on airport noise in the United States.
* (b) CONTENTS OF STUDY- In conducting the study, the Comptroller General
shall examine--
*
* (1) the selection of noise measurement methodologies used by the
Administrator;
*
* (2) the threshold of noise at which health begins to be affected;
*
* (3) the effectiveness of noise abatement programs at airports located in
the United States;
*
* (4) the impacts of aircraft noise on communities, including schools;
*
* (5) the noise assessment practices of the Federal Aviation Administration
and whether such practices fairly and accurately reflect the burden of noise
on communities; and
*
* (6) the items requested to be examined by certain Members of the House of
Representatives in a letter relating to aircraft noise to the Comptroller
General dated April 30, 1999.
* (c) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the study.
The Noise Study CHANGE Inserted Into The Airport Security Act Of 2000
(Senate Bill 2440)
SEC. 7. AIRPORT NOISE STUDY. (a) In General.--Section 745 of the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C.
47501 note; 114 Stat. 178) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE'';
(2) in subsection (a) by striking ``Comptroller General of the United States
shall'' and inserting ``Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences to'';
(3) in subsection (b)-- (A) by striking ``Comptroller General'' and
inserting ``National Academy of Sciences''; (B) by striking paragraph (1);
(C) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(4); (D) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph
(5) and inserting a period; (E) by striking paragraph
(6); and (F) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively; (4) by striking subsection
(c) and inserting the following: ``(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of the agreement entered into under subsection (a), the
National Academy of Sciences shall transmit to the Secretary a report on the
results of the study. Upon receipt of the report, the Secretary shall
transmit a copy of the report to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.''. (b)
Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act (114 Stat. 61 et
seq.) is amended by striking item relating to section 745 and inserting the
following: ``Sec. 745. Airport noise study.''.
Attorney Dropped From Helicopeter Noise Committee Because She Is Against
Noise!!!
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2002/jan/03/512838074.html
A Las Vegas attorney was bumped at least temporarily from a committee
assembled Wednesday to address helicopter noise issues.
After writing a letter welcoming Laura Fitzsimmons to the Advisory Committee
on Helicopter Noise, Aviation Director Randy Walker told county
commissioners he had concerns about the appointment.
Walker said Fitzsimmons has represented clients who have filed condemnation
lawsuits against the airport. He said one case is still pending.
Fitzsimmons, miffed at Walker's change of heart, said she has no cases
pending and told Walker she would not represent clients suing the county
while she serves on the two-year committee. Fitzsimmons said she was
interested in serving on the committee as a resident, not a lawyer.
"The only reason I wanted to serve on the committee is that I live near
Rancho and Alta -- helicopter junction," Fitzsimmons said.
The attorney wrote letters to the board Wednesday and will appear at the
Jan. 15 meeting to plead her case.
Tom
The young man was authorized to be on the airport and was pre-flighting the
airplane before taking a flying lesson.
Tom
"Bill Mulcahy" <rock...@hvi.net> wrote in message
news:u3gng6k...@corp.supernews.com...
Tom
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter149.htm
"Two Chinese banks will provide loans of up to five billion yuan (602
million U.S. dollars) to fund a magnetic levitated (maglev) train project in
this largest commercial center. The Maglev system uses powerful magnets to
hold a train a few millimeters above the track and propel it along with
little noise or vibration. Trains can run at over 400 kilometers per hour,
as fast as a jetliner."
WRONG: 400 kph = 248 mph = 219 kts (or about half the cruise speed of a
B757).
Now what Bill tends to ignore is the cheapest construction cost per mile for
Maglev in the United States is estimated at $27.6 million per mile. The
Washington DC to Baltimore, MD line is estimated at $3.5 to 4.0 billion for
a 40 mile line.
http://www.gbronline.com/tmosher/12252001A.html
Tom Mosher
Bill Mulcahy
"Tom" <tmo...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:bl3_7.4879$Oc.4...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Bill Mulcahy Inaccuracies - 01/06/2002 - part 1 of many
> Now what Bill tends to ignore is the cheapest construction cost per mile
for
> Maglev in the United States is estimated at $27.6 million per mile. The
> Washington DC to Baltimore, MD line is estimated at $3.5 to 4.0 billion
for
> a 40 mile line.
>
> http://www.gbronline.com/tmosher/12252001A.html
But think of all the JOBS for Americans that would bring.
It only costs so much because the airline industry-bribed politicians have
put
all the transportation money into airports and haven't supported the
research and
development of the Mag-lev system. Now the Chinese are going to no doubt be
the world's
Mag-lev train builders. Once America was the leader in transportation
innovation.
That was before the lobbyists controlled Washington. But thanks for at least
being
interested. Are you a airline industry lobbyist?
Bill Mulcahy
Tom
No I'm not a lobbyist. The only thing the aerospace industry pays me to do
is write maintenance procedures, service bulletins, and illustrated parts
catalogs for business jet components (thrust reversers and nacelles).
To dispute your point:
"At a cost of 8.9 billion yuan, the 29.863-km main line project, with a
designed speed of 430 km/h, is scheduled to be completed and put into in
operation in March 2003."
The above quote is essentially from the same source:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200106/11/eng20010611_72365.html
One thing you overlooked, it's for the Shanghai business district ONLY.
8.9 billion yuan = $1.076 billion US for an 18.5 mile line - so it's roughly
costing the Chinese $58 million per mile - much higher than the DCA to BWI
figure I quoted.
Bill, you're biggest liability is that you don't do any research. In fact, I
don't think you know how to do research - I've been doing research since
college (1977). You believe everything you read.
BTW, I'm currently doing some statistics research and will have a
counterpoint to your general aviation statistics. One thing with statistics,
you can't take the first set you find as fact. Here's one for you...
General Aviation (1998) includes the following (number of aircraft):
Corporate 11250
Business 32611
Instructional 11375
Personal 124347
Aerial Application 4550
Aerial Observation 3242
External Load 313
Other Work 1116
Air Taxi/Air Tours 5190
Sight Seeing 679
Other 6010
Public Use 4029
So when you make that claim that small aircraft are so dangerous compared to
motorcycles (yes, I ride a motorcycle and fly a light plane), you've got to
consider what's in the mix.
Here's another fact for you, percentage of GA accidents
Corporate 0 0.00%
Business 42 (6.77%)
Instructional 36 (5.81%)
Personal 424 (68.39%)
Aerial Application 6 (0.97%)
Other 112 (18.06%)
The above numbers will skew your "statistics" considerably.
Bill, your anti-aviation bias is so evident that you make yourself out to be
a screaming loon.
Finally, another little statistic for you concerning pollution (carbon
monoxide):
On-road vehicles 56.32%
Aircraft 1.07%
Railroads 0.13%
Marine Vessels 0.16%
Other off-road 2.88%
Fuel combustion 6.00%
Industrial processes 4.15%
Waste disposal and recycling 1.29%
Miscellaneous 28.00%
Everything from fuel combustion to the end is non-transportation.
Tom Mosher
Captain Wubba
significantly less work for you to assemble Bill's *accuracies*. A
collection of his inaccuracies would take hundreds of pages. His
'accuracies' page would only be a few paragraphs.
Cheers,
Cap
Orval Fairbairn
<wmul...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> "Tom" <tmo...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:bl3_7.4879$Oc.4...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > Bill Mulcahy Inaccuracies - 01/06/2002 - part 1 of many
>
> > Now what Bill tends to ignore is the cheapest construction cost per mile
> for
> > Maglev in the United States is estimated at $27.6 million per mile. The
> > Washington DC to Baltimore, MD line is estimated at $3.5 to 4.0 billion
> for
> > a 40 mile line.
> >
> > http://www.gbronline.com/tmosher/12252001A.html
>
> But think of all the JOBS for Americans that would bring.
>
> It only costs so much because the airline industry-bribed politicians have
> put
> all the transportation money into airports and haven't supported the
> research and
> development of the Mag-lev system. Now the Chinese are going to no doubt be
> the world's
> Mag-lev train builders. Once America was the leader in transportation
> innovation.
Bill, just WHERE is your source for such a claim? Do you have data to
support the claim, or is it so because Bill MulCahy says it is?
You have been subjecting us out here in the newsgroups with your ravings
for years, but we have yet to see the evidence.
As the old lady in the hamburger ad used to say, "Where's the beef?"
Tom
"Captain Wubba" <captai...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b846951e.02010...@posting.google.com...
to counter Bill's claims is way too easy).
Tom
Paminifarm
I would say someone on the ground was trying out his new Christmas
present, a hand-held, remote, control . . . similar to what was used
for the 9/11, but a 2002 version, and much smaller.
If you remember, the kid was looking around and "signaling", which
means his hands werenot on the "steering wheel" whatever, and his
attention wasnot on the direction of his plane.
Truth Will Set You Free (John 8:32),
So Get Some At The Famous "urls" Page:
http://paminifarm.freeservers.com/urls.html
No Banners, No ads, No Pop-Ups, Just Truth.
For Addition To The "urls" Page,
Post Your Truth URL's,
Under This Post.
Thank You
Orval Fairbairn
pamin...@lycos.com (Paminifarm) wrote:
> "Tom" <tmo...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:<dT2_7.50729$Yf.31...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> I would say someone on the ground was trying out his new Christmas
> present, a hand-held, remote, control . . . similar to what was used
> for the 9/11, but a 2002 version, and much smaller.
>
> If you remember, the kid was looking around and "signaling", which
> means his hands werenot on the "steering wheel" whatever, and his
> attention wasnot on the direction of his plane.
>
> Truth Will Set You Free (John 8:32),
> So Get Some At The Famous "urls" Page:
> http://paminifarm.freeservers.com/urls.html
> No Banners, No ads, No Pop-Ups, Just Truth.
> For Addition To The "urls" Page,
> Post Your Truth URL's,
> Under This Post.
> Thank You
DUMB!!
It would take a LOT of work to make a remote control Cessna 172 OR an
airliner! There are no direct control links.
You have been watching too many conspiracy/sci-fi TV shows!
Go back in your cage and get some engineering knowledge!
BTW, I have looked at your site. It is pure garbage!
Tom
"Paminifarm" <pamin...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:f72fc860.02010...@posting.google.com...
Yeah right....a remote control Cessna 172.
By the way, standard practice is only to have one hand on the yoke - the
other hand is for the throttle. Also, standard practice is to be always
looking around when flying an airplane.
Tom
> "Tom" <tmo...@gbronline.com> wrote in message > I would say someone on
dmaco1
Face it, Bill, you were dancing a little jig when these accidents
happened... you sick, sick bastard, using the suffering of others to push
your agenda... truly the Nazis would have loved you...
Bloody moron....
RHertz
If not, to what extent would you restrict it? Just curious. I want to know
precisely where you stand.
Tom
Tom
"RHertz" <RHe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:KrE%7.9916$464.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Geoff Blackmore
> As far as I can figure, Bill wants a ban on all aviation.
May as well. It's already faster to travel from Washington to NY by train,
if you consider airport waiting times.
In Europe trains are a serious and respectable way to move about, so maybe
the US should start upgrading it's rail standards. Amtraks' Acela Express
is a good start, but without a national highspeed track network to operate
on, it's not going to spread very far, very fast.
-Geoff.
RHertz
"Geoff Blackmore" <geof...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rvU%7.1713$Qz1.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
When is the train for Europe leaving? Also, I need to be in California
later today, will the train get me there? I need to get from New York to
Huntsville, Alabama. Is there a train that goes that route?
Trains are not perfect, either. They create noise and other environmental
problems, too. The economics of trains can be rather difficult to manage.
Consider Amtrak and its woes.
If an airline wants to try out a new route, all they need is a plane, and
an airport, probably already there, in each city. If a railroad wants a
new route, it must build miles of track. If the route doesn't work out, the
railroad is stuck with all that worthless track. The airline can just take
their plane off that route, and use it elsewhere.
Nobody can hear a plane enroute. (well, barely) They only pose a noise
problem on take off and landing. Nobody has ever been hit by a plane
enroute between cities (plane crashes excepted.) These things are not true
of trains.
In terms of fuel economy, one would think that trains win the day, and they
do, sort of. But a plane load of people is getting about the same gas
mileage as if they all got into cars and drove. With gas prices so low,
planes are still the most desireable, and fastest means of long and medium
distance travel.