The United States Congress supports Institutional Lying with it's support of the FAA a prime example. According to a recent PBS report a 1996 change to FAA's charter removed the mandate to promote aviation. A recent post at AviationWatch explains :
The law isn't what it says it is
Posted by: "Howard Beckman" hpb@frys.com
Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:41 am (PDT)
Remember how gratified we were when the Congress did away with the FAA's
"dual mandate" in the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 104-264,
Sec. 401)? The dual mandate to the FAA had been to maintain safety and
"promote aviation". After numerous scandalous disclosures about FAA's
practice of allowing airlines to monitor their own safety practices, the
Congress yanked the "promote aviation" prong. But did it?
Thanks to a documentary aired recently on the PBS Frontline series ("Flying
Cheap"), I learned to my astonishment that, while the cheerleading mandate
was removed from the language of the statutes, it was done with a wink to
insiders. Tucked into the conference report (House Report 104-848) was
language that told another story. Here is the excerpt (I added boldface):
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference
29. Dual Mandate
House bill
Section 401: Amends sections 40101(d) to make safety and security FAA's
highest priority and to strike promotion language in two other paragraphs.
Amends 40104(a) to strike promotion language.
Senate amendment
Section 407: Amends section 40104 to require FAA to encourage the safety of
air commerce in addition to the development of civil aeronautics.
Conference substitute
Section 401: House changes to section 40101(d) and Senate changes to
section 40104(a). The Managers have adopted provisions from both the House
and Senate bills to clarify that the FAA's highest priority is safety and
security. The managers do not intend for enactment of this provision to
require any changes in the FAA's current organization or functions.
Instead, the provision is intended to address any public perceptions that
might exist that the promotion of air commerce by the FAA could create a
conflict with its safety regulatory mandate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(hr848)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Institutional Lying at FAA
When it comes to serving industry instead of the citizens of America, Minerals Management Service is just one recent glaring example of fraud and misuse of authority gone mad. This recent revelation is prompted by the Gulf oil disaster. As the nation will one day discover, the FAA is yet another federal agency in the pockets of industry and private profit. The FAA serves the airlines without regard for the health and safety of American citizens. The world be damned.
When I first became alarmed with the massive increase in flights over my Southeastern Kentucky farm I naturally turned to the FAA for information and explanation. They do work for me, don’t they? I am a taxpayer. Sure they do.
I called several times and was put in contact with FAA’s regional manager for this area. I explained the increase in air traffic and noise and asked if this was a temporary change or permanent. This pleasant sounding man took my phone number and said he would call me back with an answer. On my third try to re-connect with the regional manager I finally got through, by accident I do believe.
I reintroduced myself and he informed me that there were no flights over my area. And even if there were I wouldn’t be able to hear them. I was a bit surprised with his response. Why would a big bad federal agency need to lie to me? At that time I was estimating about 1600 flights per day starting about 5:30AM and finally stopping about 2:00AM.
A political friend contacted a member of the House of Representatives who was told the same lie by the FAA: there are no flights over this area.
I contacted others at the FAA and was always handled in a friendly manner and always told that I would receive a return call with an answer. One lady said this would be easily answered. And she would get back to me soon. No call was forthcoming. Others were jovial and said that there were 1600 flights over many areas of the United States. One jovial gentleman called back in a very somber manner and reiterated; ‘there are no flights over your area.’
I was experiencing Institutional Lying! But why? Why even go to the trouble to lie to one little citizen?
The aviation industry is treated very favorably. No excise tax on fuel. Any complaint goes through a federal agency that acts to protect the industry. Airports, navigation systems, air traffic controllers, TSA, security equipment and personnel, and other massive support functions are primarily paid for with taxpayer dollars. In Kentucky there are over 100 general aviation airports all presumably receiving tax dollars. And for all this investment of tax dollars I am the recipient of Institutional Lying.
As Vance Morrow stated in a 2001 Time Magazine editorial:
Eventually, the FAA will be forced to abandon its disgracefully intimate collusion with the aviation industry.
The original article can be found here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,108904,00.html
When I first became alarmed with the massive increase in flights over my Southeastern Kentucky farm I naturally turned to the FAA for information and explanation. They do work for me, don’t they? I am a taxpayer. Sure they do.
I called several times and was put in contact with FAA’s regional manager for this area. I explained the increase in air traffic and noise and asked if this was a temporary change or permanent. This pleasant sounding man took my phone number and said he would call me back with an answer. On my third try to re-connect with the regional manager I finally got through, by accident I do believe.
I reintroduced myself and he informed me that there were no flights over my area. And even if there were I wouldn’t be able to hear them. I was a bit surprised with his response. Why would a big bad federal agency need to lie to me? At that time I was estimating about 1600 flights per day starting about 5:30AM and finally stopping about 2:00AM.
A political friend contacted a member of the House of Representatives who was told the same lie by the FAA: there are no flights over this area.
I contacted others at the FAA and was always handled in a friendly manner and always told that I would receive a return call with an answer. One lady said this would be easily answered. And she would get back to me soon. No call was forthcoming. Others were jovial and said that there were 1600 flights over many areas of the United States. One jovial gentleman called back in a very somber manner and reiterated; ‘there are no flights over your area.’
I was experiencing Institutional Lying! But why? Why even go to the trouble to lie to one little citizen?
The aviation industry is treated very favorably. No excise tax on fuel. Any complaint goes through a federal agency that acts to protect the industry. Airports, navigation systems, air traffic controllers, TSA, security equipment and personnel, and other massive support functions are primarily paid for with taxpayer dollars. In Kentucky there are over 100 general aviation airports all presumably receiving tax dollars. And for all this investment of tax dollars I am the recipient of Institutional Lying.
As Vance Morrow stated in a 2001 Time Magazine editorial:
Eventually, the FAA will be forced to abandon its disgracefully intimate collusion with the aviation industry.
The original article can be found here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,108904,00.html
Thursday, May 20, 2010
More Aviation PR [aka BS]
Climate Progress ran an article about future fuel efficient aircraft from a study by M.I.T. Below is my response to their article. By the way Climate Progress is a great blog dealing with the issues of climate change. Check it out at www.climateprogress.org
I am surprised Climate Progress would give voice to aviation’s future. The aviation industry maintains a hold on the imagination of the modern public. The term ‘jet setter’ will cause most people to become glassy eyed. A very powerful addiction indeed.
Our addiction to the aviation industry is very similar to tobacco addiction in the 1950 - 60’s. We wanted to believe in the goodness of participation. Smart and good people believed in the merits of tobacco, supported of course by high quality tobacco industry PR. Medical doctors advertised their choice of smokes. This Climate Progress piece is aviation PR. Sierra Club and Metropolis magazines have recently fallen for the same PR [aka BS]. How many ways will aviation meet the challenges of global climate change? Biofuels? Lighter weight? These are subject to debate. Should we be air shipping flowers half way around the globe? Does aviation really contribute to the loss of Arctic ice? These are questions that need scientific answers before promotion of future comforts.
Aviation is a very dirty industry. Jets are blast furnaces over our collective heads burning a low grade kerosene in tremendous quantities. General aviation still runs on highly leaded fuels.
The flying public is a very small group within the Human community. Big carbon footprint / small population. This small community reaps the benefits while the rest of the world suffers from the results of this ‘special’ benefit.
While some express concern about the carbon footprint they leave by flying, they attempt to assuage their respective consciences by offering to plant trees to compensate. While a nice gesture, planting trees in no way reverses the damage to millions of people’s health and happiness.
There are many industries contributing to the destruction of our environment for profit. Time is short. Environmentalists and Scientists everywhere must be clear and stand up to these threats, no matter how important to our lifestyle.
I am surprised Climate Progress would give voice to aviation’s future. The aviation industry maintains a hold on the imagination of the modern public. The term ‘jet setter’ will cause most people to become glassy eyed. A very powerful addiction indeed.
Our addiction to the aviation industry is very similar to tobacco addiction in the 1950 - 60’s. We wanted to believe in the goodness of participation. Smart and good people believed in the merits of tobacco, supported of course by high quality tobacco industry PR. Medical doctors advertised their choice of smokes. This Climate Progress piece is aviation PR. Sierra Club and Metropolis magazines have recently fallen for the same PR [aka BS]. How many ways will aviation meet the challenges of global climate change? Biofuels? Lighter weight? These are subject to debate. Should we be air shipping flowers half way around the globe? Does aviation really contribute to the loss of Arctic ice? These are questions that need scientific answers before promotion of future comforts.
Aviation is a very dirty industry. Jets are blast furnaces over our collective heads burning a low grade kerosene in tremendous quantities. General aviation still runs on highly leaded fuels.
The flying public is a very small group within the Human community. Big carbon footprint / small population. This small community reaps the benefits while the rest of the world suffers from the results of this ‘special’ benefit.
While some express concern about the carbon footprint they leave by flying, they attempt to assuage their respective consciences by offering to plant trees to compensate. While a nice gesture, planting trees in no way reverses the damage to millions of people’s health and happiness.
There are many industries contributing to the destruction of our environment for profit. Time is short. Environmentalists and Scientists everywhere must be clear and stand up to these threats, no matter how important to our lifestyle.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Please Raise Your Hand If You Want More Lead In the Air
The EPA is asking for comments regarding the continued use of lead in aviation engines. The program is titled:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From Piston-
Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline; Proposed Rule
and can be found at:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9603.htm
Excerpt follows:
Given the recent findings of the science summarized by EPA in the
AQCD for Lead as well as the findings of the CDC, the Agency is
concerned about the potential for health and welfare effects from
exposure to lead emissions from aircraft engines using leaded avgas. On
a national basis, emissions of lead from aircraft engines using leaded
avgas are the largest single source category for emissions of lead to
air, comprising approximately half of the national inventory.\6\ There
are almost 20,000 airport facilities in the U.S. at which leaded avgas
may be used, and in some areas of the country there are densely
populated residential developments immediately adjacent to these
airport facilities. As described in Section V, we estimate that up to
16 million people reside and three million children attend school in
close proximity to airport facilities servicing piston-engine aircraft
that are operating on leaded avgas.
Be sure to wave at the next piston plane as it flys over your home, children and gardens.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From Piston-
Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline; Proposed Rule
and can be found at:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9603.htm
Excerpt follows:
Given the recent findings of the science summarized by EPA in the
AQCD for Lead as well as the findings of the CDC, the Agency is
concerned about the potential for health and welfare effects from
exposure to lead emissions from aircraft engines using leaded avgas. On
a national basis, emissions of lead from aircraft engines using leaded
avgas are the largest single source category for emissions of lead to
air, comprising approximately half of the national inventory.\6\ There
are almost 20,000 airport facilities in the U.S. at which leaded avgas
may be used, and in some areas of the country there are densely
populated residential developments immediately adjacent to these
airport facilities. As described in Section V, we estimate that up to
16 million people reside and three million children attend school in
close proximity to airport facilities servicing piston-engine aircraft
that are operating on leaded avgas.
Be sure to wave at the next piston plane as it flys over your home, children and gardens.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Pollution Levels From One 747
Another interesting mention in the article I referenced on March 29, 2010 creates a good visual understanding of what's going on with the hurling of a 500 ton metal mass into the sky:
Finally, consider a remark made by a Boeing physicist that the pollution levels from one 747 take-off are somewhat similar to setting the local gas station on fire and flying it over your head.
Folks that live near airports are rightly concerned for their health and safety. Us folks in rural areas suffer the same levels of pollution over larger areas with thousands of jets flying over nearly every square inch of America.
No where to run anymore.
Finally, consider a remark made by a Boeing physicist that the pollution levels from one 747 take-off are somewhat similar to setting the local gas station on fire and flying it over your head.
Folks that live near airports are rightly concerned for their health and safety. Us folks in rural areas suffer the same levels of pollution over larger areas with thousands of jets flying over nearly every square inch of America.
No where to run anymore.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Massive Amounts of Hazardous and Toxic Emissions
According to an article - Airports: Deadly Neighbors by Charles R. Miller [formerly a supervisor with a major airline and currently a director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare (AReCO) working on airport environmental issues]the products of jet engine exhaust produce massive amounts of hazardous and toxic emissions.
Here is just a partial, astonishing list of constituent compounds: Freon 11; Freon 12; Methyl Bromide; Dichloromethane; cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Carbon Tetrachloride; Benzene; Trichloroethylene; Toluene; Tetrachloroethene; Ethylbenzene; m,p-Xylene; o-Xylene; Styrene; 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene; 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene; o-Dichlorobenzene; Formaldehyde; Acetaldehyde; Acrolein; Acetone; Propinaldehyde; Crotonaldehyde; Isobutylaldehyde; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Benzaldehyde; Veraldehyde; Hexanaldehyde; Ethyl Alcohol; Acetone; Isopropyl Alcohol; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Butane; Isopentane; Pentane; Hexane; Butyl Alcohol; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; n,n-Dimethyl Acetamide; Dimethyl Disulfide; m-Cresol; 4-Ethyl Toulene; n- Heptaldehyde; Octanal; 1,4-Dioxane; Methyl Phenyl Ketone; Vinyl Acetate; Heptane; Phenol; Octane; Anthracene; Dimethylnapthalene(isomers); Flouranthene; 1-methylnaphthalene; 2-methylnaphthalene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene; Benzo(a)pyrene; 1-nitropyrene; 1,8-dinitropyrene; 1,3-Butadiene; sulfites; nitrites; nitrogen oxide; nitrogen monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; nitrogen trioxide; nitric acid; sulfur oxides; sulfur dioxide; sulfuric acid; urea; ammonia; carbon monoxide; ozone; particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5); and finally this compound; 3-nitrobenzanthrone.*
According to chemist Hitomi Suzuki of Kyoto University, the last compound, 3-nitrobenzanthrone, may be the most hazardous compound ever to be tested for carcinogenicity, scoring substantially higher in the well-known Ames test than its nearest rival, 1,8-dinitropyrene listed above. (New Scientist, 25 October 1997.) Many of the other compounds indicated above are also considered to be carcinogens. Adding to the direct effect of any single chemical listed above, the probabilities of synergistic effects must be considered. The toxic brew of compounds is also subject to reactions caused by atmospheric and solar effects, resulting in new, consequent compounds.
Our skys and consequently our water sources are filled with this toxic brew.
I discussed the 'special' place aviation occupies in our country and the world. It appears these emissions are regulated by the FAA! Might as well let Peabody Coal Company regulate coal mining and pollution. Or let Phillip Morris regulate tobacco sales and marketing.
This 'special' relationship does maximize profits, without considering the costs in health and death care.
Here is just a partial, astonishing list of constituent compounds: Freon 11; Freon 12; Methyl Bromide; Dichloromethane; cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Carbon Tetrachloride; Benzene; Trichloroethylene; Toluene; Tetrachloroethene; Ethylbenzene; m,p-Xylene; o-Xylene; Styrene; 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene; 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene; o-Dichlorobenzene; Formaldehyde; Acetaldehyde; Acrolein; Acetone; Propinaldehyde; Crotonaldehyde; Isobutylaldehyde; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Benzaldehyde; Veraldehyde; Hexanaldehyde; Ethyl Alcohol; Acetone; Isopropyl Alcohol; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Butane; Isopentane; Pentane; Hexane; Butyl Alcohol; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; n,n-Dimethyl Acetamide; Dimethyl Disulfide; m-Cresol; 4-Ethyl Toulene; n- Heptaldehyde; Octanal; 1,4-Dioxane; Methyl Phenyl Ketone; Vinyl Acetate; Heptane; Phenol; Octane; Anthracene; Dimethylnapthalene(isomers); Flouranthene; 1-methylnaphthalene; 2-methylnaphthalene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene; Benzo(a)pyrene; 1-nitropyrene; 1,8-dinitropyrene; 1,3-Butadiene; sulfites; nitrites; nitrogen oxide; nitrogen monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; nitrogen trioxide; nitric acid; sulfur oxides; sulfur dioxide; sulfuric acid; urea; ammonia; carbon monoxide; ozone; particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5); and finally this compound; 3-nitrobenzanthrone.*
According to chemist Hitomi Suzuki of Kyoto University, the last compound, 3-nitrobenzanthrone, may be the most hazardous compound ever to be tested for carcinogenicity, scoring substantially higher in the well-known Ames test than its nearest rival, 1,8-dinitropyrene listed above. (New Scientist, 25 October 1997.) Many of the other compounds indicated above are also considered to be carcinogens. Adding to the direct effect of any single chemical listed above, the probabilities of synergistic effects must be considered. The toxic brew of compounds is also subject to reactions caused by atmospheric and solar effects, resulting in new, consequent compounds.
Our skys and consequently our water sources are filled with this toxic brew.
I discussed the 'special' place aviation occupies in our country and the world. It appears these emissions are regulated by the FAA! Might as well let Peabody Coal Company regulate coal mining and pollution. Or let Phillip Morris regulate tobacco sales and marketing.
This 'special' relationship does maximize profits, without considering the costs in health and death care.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A Rogue Industry
Some would say the airline industry is a rogue industry. Maybe some questions would help determine the truth:
Can a citizen influence where airlines fly? No!
Can a citizen influence when airline fly? No!
Must an airline respond to complaints of noise? No!
Can any aircraft fly over your home anytime at any loudness? Yes!
Are airlines and airports subsidized by the taxpayer? Yes!
Does general aviation comply to lead free fuel regulations? No?
Can a citizen readily identify an aircraft? No, or with difficulty.
Can a State regulate aircraft on behave of it's citizens? No!
Can a State regulate aircraft noise? No!
Are airlines responsible to any agency regarding citizens on the ground? No!
Can a citizen influence where airlines fly? No!
Can a citizen influence when airline fly? No!
Must an airline respond to complaints of noise? No!
Can any aircraft fly over your home anytime at any loudness? Yes!
Are airlines and airports subsidized by the taxpayer? Yes!
Does general aviation comply to lead free fuel regulations? No?
Can a citizen readily identify an aircraft? No, or with difficulty.
Can a State regulate aircraft on behave of it's citizens? No!
Can a State regulate aircraft noise? No!
Are airlines responsible to any agency regarding citizens on the ground? No!
How did the aviation industry become so special? How are they different from a 'normal' citizen?
If I drive a vehicle without a recognizable and traceable license I would be ticketed or arrested. Have you ever tried to identify an airplane? If you can determine the ID your are very lucky indeed. But say you get lucky, what is the next step? A group recently went to court to obtain aircraft ownership information. This was after trying to obtain this information via the Freedom of Information Act. The FAA maintains this information must be kept secret for reasons of privacy. Wow, these folks can fly over my [and your] house anytime, over and over, and their identity is protected by a taxpayer funded federal agency.
I own a 1964 Studebaker Avanti. Nice car! Of course I can't obtain leaded fuel. No problem. I understand the importance of keeping lead out of the environment. So I rebuild the engine at considerable cost so I can use unleaded fuel. Or if I was willing to break federal law I could try to get LEADED fuel at any airport. Essentially all general aviation aircraft still use leaded fuel! Think about that next time you are overflown. Why is aviation so special?
Looks rogue to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
