Quote of the Week:  "Panic. This was going to be my retirement home" elderly resident living near Southwest Florida International Airport who was asked about her feelings about  the impacts of a new parallel runway


Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter #266.........................................April 4, 2004 Past newsletters can be accessed at: http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm  Bill Mulcahy rockaway@prodigy.net 


WMD's Or Aviation Noise, The Government LIES!!!      


As Bill Sees It: (Editorial) Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them:  I'm glad to see that finally "some" of the lies that the Bush Administration told to drag us into war are finally being revealed. Lying government officials are nothing new. Having observed the FAA for a long time, I have become fascinated how this government agency cleverly lies to promote aviation expansionism at every opportunity. If you want to see an example this blatant government lying you only have to look at the way the FAA has airports (cleverly diverting responsibility away from themselves) monitor noise impacts on local communities. The FAA mandates that airports use their cleverly devised (Integrated Noise Model) computer software, with all sorts of "variables," for the sole purpose of creating  aviation expansion-friendly, inaccurate noise maps!!! In 1981 the Aviation Cabal-controlled politicians even went to the extreme measure of removing funding from the EPA office that protected the public from excessive noise!!! Perhaps the EPA objected to the FAA's using phony computer estimates instead of actual noise monitoring to determine aviation impacts!!! Maybe the CIA should send some of their agents to work in the FAA for a while to learn how to lie better. Will President Kerry Be The Same (Or Worse) As Bush On Aviation Expansion? I'm a "anybody but Bush" person, but I have no illusions that Kerry will be any different when it comes to aviation expansion. Has he opposed the new runway at Logan Airport in his own state? One issue you can be sure both the Democrats and Republicans agree on is the need to continue to expand aviation. That's why Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta (pictured at left), who was a former vice president of Lockheed Martin, is the only Clinton cabinet member who is in the cabinets of both Bush and Clinton!!!  Maybe Kerry will keep him on to continue "improving" airports by building more runways and increasing night operations over residential areas. We had eight years of a Democrat "environmentalist" (President Perjurer) before Bush and airports expanded more than ever with no effort to restore federal (EPA) oversight over the health impacts of noise pollution. Airlines Still In Trouble Despite Increased Passenger Numbers!!! I was surprised to read this week that the U.S. airline industry is expected to lose two BILLION dollars this year!!! Of course it would be unrealistic to hope that the whole aviation industry will collapse and there will be no planes in the skies (I can dream can't I?). When one airline polluter goes under it is is quickly gobbled up by another predator airline. Although most aviation victims like to see the American airline industry enemy in trouble, I think anti-aviation activists should keep the focus on the health and environmental impacts of this pollution industry. The Runway "Safety" Extension Rule: The Mysterious FAA Order 5200.8 I received an email from aviation noise activist attorney, Howard Beckman, about my suspicions voiced in last week's newsletter about this important, yet hard to find, FAA order mandating runway "safety" extensions. Mr. Beckman said "Bill, not everything is on the web.  You can get free copies of FAA publications, including orders, by sending a fax to DOT.  I have an order form (which has the fax #) at www.netvista.net/~hpb/ac-order.html  (this is linked from a file that has extensive information on FAA publications: <www.netvista.net/~hpb/faa-pubs.html > .  I have found that publications are sent very speedily. In addition to this new practice regarding runway extension for safety, the FAA has also proposed a new rule that would disallow airports from banning aircraft that, in the airport's judgment, are too heavy for the runway.  This *really* opens the door to bigger planes.  See "weight-based restrictions" at <www.netvista.net/~hpb/flash.html>"  How interesting that with all information that the FAA puts on the web,  THIS FAA order wasn't considered important enough!!! I am REALLY interested in seeing it now.

Airlines Financial Outlook Is "Wobbly" Again!!! WASHINGTON - A steady rise in travel demand notwithstanding, the United States airline industry's financial outlook is looking wobbly again. The losses this year are now expected to surpass US$2 billion (S$3.4 billion), about four times steeper than analysts' earlier estimates. Shares of several large airlines fell on Tuesday as investors braced themselves for the release of March traffic and revenue data later this week. Major carriers such as American Airlines and United Airlines are struggling on many fronts: expensive jet fuel, fierce competition from budget carriers and tight-fistedness from formerly high-paying business travellers. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,243331,00.html

Naples, Florida Retirees Get Peaceful Retirement Stolen Away By Airport Expansion: Jets that would be landing on a proposed new parallel runway at Southwest Florida International Airport after 2010 might be flying over a densely populated residential area of San Carlos Park. And that has San Carlos Park and even Estero residents concerned. "People find it very disturbing when they (jets) are coming in at lower levels to land," he said. "If it's very frequent, it can be very distracting. A majority of people here are retired and looking to go ahead and have a peaceful retirement. And if a heavy traffic pattern takes place, it is going to decrease the enjoyment of their later years." http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/bonitanews/article/0,2071,NPDN_14894_2773628,00.html  http://www.news-press.com/news/local_state/040401airport.html 

Angry Japanese Residents Sue US Air Force Over Sleepless Nights: They have been angry at the American ‘occupiers’ before, but this time emotions have gone far beyond that. Residents of the Okinawa city of Ginowan - many of whom cannot remember an uninterrupted night’s sleep - are furious at the contempt with which senior staff at the US air base in Futenma are treating a lawsuit over "intolerable noise levels". For more than half a century, the people of the town that surrounds the US marine corps’ base on Japan’s southernmost island have borne the burden of the American presence, but not any more. "Every day and every night, I am scared," says Chuuji Chinen, 69, a retired journalist and local council member. "But now we are more angry than scared." 
 http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=356822004  

FAA Admits Its Computer Estimate Integrated Noise Map (INM) Is Flawed!!! According to the FAA "INM is an average-value model and is designed to estimate long-term average effects using average annual input conditions. Because of this, differences between predicted and measured values can occur because certain local acoustical variables are not averaged, or because they may not be explicitly modeled in INM. Examples of detailed local acoustical variables include temperature profiles, wind gradients, humidity effects, ground absorption, individual aircraft directivity patterns and sound diffraction around terrain, buildings, barriers, etc. Differences may also occur due to errors or improper procedures employed during the collection of the measured data." http://www.netvista.net/~hpb/inm.html  Editor's Note: FAAspeak translation: garbage in, garbage out. Anything to avoid the actual monitoring of noise impacts.

 Washington National Gets More Big Planes: Eleven more round-trip flights are being added at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, with most for service beyond the airport's normal 1,250 mile perimeter. "I'm disappointed but not surprised," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., of the additions. "I guess I can't blame my colleagues for wanting more access to National Airport for those folks who live in the West Coast," said Moran, whose district includes the airport. Moran and other D.C. area leaders have opposed flight additions to the airport in the past citing safety, noise and crowding concerns. "National Airport was not built for transcontinental flights. They carry so much fuel and they're so much bigger, and the fact is that the landing strips were not built for the large planes," Moran added.  In 1966, flights to and from National were limited by act of Congress to a maximum of 650 miles. Congress extended it to 1,000 miles in 1981 and 1,250 miles in 1986, just before direct federal control of the airport was relinquished and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority was created. Editor's Note: What's the noise impact to people as long as the congresscreeps get more convenience.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43155-2004Apr1.html

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Important Aviation News Stories This Week