Bobby Sturgell Nomination Hearing

For those who care about the future of this country, currently more in peril than some might otherwise think - please consider visiting the following Internet website:

www.TheHappyHarbor.com

At this above website, you will be able to see, and even also hear, by way of mp3 musical download, the truth about FAA Head Bobby Sturgell's background - and the primordial mid-Lantic chowder from whence he came.

Please read the song lyrics. They are for real. They are no joke. Please also access the links to the corresponding news stories. Those news stories spawned the lyrics and song, just like the cult of the late J. Edgar Hoover spawned the ill intentions of Bobby Sturgell and the FAA. The Hoover connection, and even the very-real gunplay at the site of the Sturgell family biker-bar in Deale, Maryland, is all documented and on the website for the entire world to see. And for that matter, just how smart is it for a publican family to insult the very nationwide network of bikers upon whom the family's income in part relied? It's all what Bobby Sturgell and the FAA never wanted you to see. They lost. The people won.

If you are concerned about the risk of people who emanate from racist, homophobic breeding grounds that would do further hateful violence to OUR rights and OUR country, retaining control of the United States federal government, then please, visit the www.TheHappyHarbor.com website at least once a day for the sake of maintaining web-statistics and momentum; pass the URL on to your friends; write letters; make calls; and get (further) involved.

www.TheHappyHarbor.com

Bobby Sturgell MUST be removed from office as current FAA Administrator. Your assistance is requested and very, very much appreciated.

Thank you,

Aerononymous
 
Hi Rob,
3 minutes is what the FAA "Claims" - the exaggerated and inflated figure. This figure has been refuted by the ATC's who have repeatedly said that the airspace redesign will actually make the delays worse by putting more planes in the sky than the airports can handle, the number of runways will not be increased.
Your point about "more Space" and "more room between airplanes" is also very inaccurate. The plan for Rockland airspace would have more planes coming down a narrow corridor with reduced distance between planes.
As for eating crow, take out your fork...
Here is an excerpt from the televised and webcast "informational" meeting held Thursday, July 12, 2007, at Ramapo Town Hall in Ramapo, NY. The telecast was entitled "Live From Town Hall" - "Town Hall Meeting on FAA Airspace Redesign Plan Hosted By Supervisor St. Lawrence" (the "July 12 Telecast"). A full audio-visual
recording of the July 12 Telecast is currently available on-line at
"http://www.ramapo.org", at the "Archives" section of that website (as
disseminated from the site, hereinafter referred to as "Webcast"). All
time-codes below in the format "00:00:00" are to the SMPTE time-code of the
Webcast. This excerpt was also printed in the Our Town newspaper in Orangetown NY.

Question: How low and close to [Rocklanders'] roofs and heads will the
thereby-redirected Newark "(Runway) 22" arrivals come?

Answer(s): "5,000 Feet" (Chestnut Ridge Mayor Jerome Kobre, at 00:46:07,
00:47:24). "6,000 Feet" (Steve Kelley, FAA, at 01:01:23, 01:10:47,
01:11:56); see also, comments of Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, at 01:22:55).
The prior "8,000 feet" figure falsely propagated on the "RockNet" list is
directly contradicted by the audio-visually recorded admission of FAA's own
Steve Kelley, a federal governmental official. Similarly, see the Powerpoint
document depicted on the July 12 Telecast, reading, in relevant part, "EWR
arrivals enter the TRACON at 8,000 feet and immediately descend to 6,000
feet" (00:59:47). Additionally, such numbers are "averages" and not
"worst-case scenarios" (see, e.g., Steve Kelley, FAA, at 01:18:10), the
latter of which may therefore come in at lower numbers. Finally, see
comments of Scott Carpenter, FAA, (01:25:11), in which Carpenter determines
that based upon Rockland County elevations, one needs to subtract somewhere
between 600 feet as a minimum or else 1,000 feet as a maximum, from the
otherwise-applicable number, and thereafter, in Carpenter's words, "that's
your number" for altitude.
KELLEY'S 6,000, MINUS CARPENTER'S 1,000 FEET, RESULTS IN 5,000 FEET - AND
EVEN LESS THAN THAT, IN THE STATISTICAL 50% OF CASES ON THE BELL-SHAPED
CURVE WHICH ARE NOT THE MEAN AVERAGES AS CITED BY KELLEY ABOVE!!!

Rob - we have major highways (like the Van Wyck) and air traffic already in Rockland - we just don't want 600 additional jumbo jets flying overhead for no good reason. The flight paths can stay the way they are.

As for "Nice Big Houses", Rockland County is for the most part blue collar. Most of the folks in my town are Police and Firemen from NYC - and for many of us, moving here was a financial stretch. A stretch we wouldn't have to make if we lived next to the Van Wyck (or under the flight path to LaGuardia).

The safety issue is where I would think that the members of this forum would be most interested.
These safety concerns are not just mine, but those of NATCA, whose knowledge on the subject I respect. Here's one recent tidbit - I have much more......

In a correspondence dated January 17, 2008, National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA) NY TRACON president Dean Iacopelli, indicated that NATCA had “serious safety concerns” regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) decision to rush ahead with implementation of departure “dispersal headings” at Newark Airport (see memo below). Iacopelli requested that the FAA immediately suspend the procedures.
 
aerononymous said:
For those who care about the future of this country, currently more in peril than some might otherwise think - please consider visiting the following Internet website:

...
Bobby Sturgell MUST be removed from office as current FAA Administrator. Your assistance is requested and very, very much appreciated.

Thank you,

Aerononymous
Click to expand...
Aero-Whoever-You-Are...

Dude, we also have our battles with the FAA. I don't think you'll find anyone here favorable to Sturgell nor many others in the Washington area with the FAA. Our battle involves the survival and continued freedom of something all of us here enjoy and have great passion for. It involves keeping it from breaking our banks worse than flying already is.

You have your battle. But, you bring your actions toward us in a way I don't understand. Though we both (You and your co-hearts and GA pilots collectively) may have an issue with how the FAA handles things, I don't think this is the place you're going to get a tremendous amount of assistance. You seem to believe in the concept of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That simply isn't true here.

One thing that should be utmost important in all pilots and all persons involved in operations is safety. Unfortunately, there are some aspects of air carriers that place profit beyond safety but I don't think that's the intended role of the FAA and it is dang sure not the desire of GA pilots. A great many of those pilots for air carriers are also active pilots on the GA side. They as well as those strictly flying air carrier are all concerned for safety.

You have concerns of noise and seem to care nothing about all other aspects. You constantly bring up "three minutes." In terminal operations, that three minutes can last forever when you have as many as six operations in that three minutes. There are over 1.2 million operations into and out of the NY area annually. It's only going to increase.

In the end, your battle is with the growth in the NY area. It's with limited resources from which to operate those air carriers. It's with poorly scheduled airline services.

But, no matter how you slice it... it's not with the folks on this board nor the GA community and I resent you attempting to make it such.
 
How long has the Newark airport been there?

How long have the concerned residents of Rockland lived there?

Unless you were there before Newark was built - quit crying.
 
KELLEY'S 6,000, MINUS CARPENTER'S 1,000 FEET, RESULTS IN 5,000 FEET - AND
EVEN LESS THAN THAT, IN THE STATISTICAL 50% OF CASES ON THE BELL-SHAPED
CURVE WHICH ARE NOT THE MEAN AVERAGES AS CITED BY KELLEY ABOVE!!!
Click to expand...

Ok, you need to learn something about aircraft approach altitudes.

Every instrument rated pilot (and every airline pilot has been instrument rated for a LOT of flight hours) knows one rule about navigating approaches that is drilled into their head from the beginning:
DO NOT DESCEND BELOW MINIMUM ALTITUDE IF YOU LIKE HAVING A PULSE

A lot of work goes into figuring out approaches. One of the critical things they figure out is how high, how fast, and for how long. We fly from point A to B at X altitude at Q speed, then from B to C at Y altitude and R speed, and so forth. The altitude is called a "minimum" which means we never go below it.

Why?

Because people who bust minimums die.

Now as it happens, I live near White Marsh, MD - which is about the same distance from BWI as your neighborhood is from Newark Airport. We have an approach that goes right over our house. The minimum altitude for that approach is 4,000 feet.

At that altitude, you know how much noise we get from the airplanes that pass overhead when the airport is using the northern approach?

I have to be outside to hear it.

You guys are making serious chicken little noises...
 
..and they have no clue that you can't have a curved ILS. The ILS IAF is pretty much right over Teterboro.
 
EdFred said:
..and they have no clue that you can't have a curved ILS. The ILS IAF is pretty much right over Teterboro.
Click to expand...

Even though PATRN intersection is the officially charted IAF, the practical IAF is the Teterboro VOR and has been for many years. If I had a dime every time the North Arrival or 22 Final Vector sectors said "proceed direct teterboro for the ILS 22L" I would be one wealthy person.

Until the FAA starts putting together some qualified individuals and enough resources, I don't see RNP RNAV approaches going anywhere for a while. These have a great potential to relief some traffic and mitigate noise over sensitive areas using curved flight paths down to ILS-like minimums. But no one seems to be pressing the FAA for those procedures.
 
Last edited:
True, but there's still probably some op specs out there that require at least an x mile FAC, so they will still be headed to TEB with a 30-45 intercept angle from TEB either side of the FAC.
 
EdFred said:
True, but there's still probably some op specs out there that require at least an x mile FAC, so they will still be headed to TEB with a 30-45 intercept angle from TEB either side of the FAC.
Click to expand...

A curved approach path could be considered a final approach course past the FAF (it need not be straight) though I honestly can't give a factual answer since I haven't done much research on them yet. The reality is no RNP approaches are often used (nor do many exist) so there is no need to revise company ops specs for the procedure. When the time comes, that may happen however.
 
By FAC I really meant "__ mile straight in approach"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top