Bobby Sturgell Nomination Hearing

HPNPilot1200

HPNPilot1200

En-Route
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
2,662
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Jason
If you have the time, I would highly recommend you watch these clips of the Bobby Sturgell Nomination Hearing: http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B19681715E4DBB3C.

It gave me an even greater awareness about how clueless the FAA is, in addition to its own acting administrator who has been nominated by President Bush to become the Administrator. I hope a greater number of media outlets will discover the dialog and outcome from these hearings. I find this lack of awareness by the general, traveling public is a concern that needs to be improved. At the same time, I am glad to see our senators using the most accurate numbers and actively challenging Mr. Sturgell's incorrect figures and in many cases, flat out lies.

Enjoy! :goofy:
 
I skipped all the first segment and a good part of the second. I don't really get into listening to politicians make speeches during a process where the greatest amount of speaking is to be done by those providing "testimony."

Now, what I did hear of this guy... he's a well-grounded politician. Through three segments, not once did I hear a really straight-forward answer. I wish there was a way to speed up the play rate. Watching paint dry is more entertaining when it takes forever to give what would be a fairly simple answer for any one of us on this board.

Sturgell's not the person for the job. Perhaps, it's time to look to the private sector for executive management? It's clear, these jobs are not for the OJT candidate. And of course, when you work under the previously pathetic management, what proof is there you're going to improve over their abilities? I'm not encouraged.
 
Hoo boy. Wrong nominee.

The only guy left in the director-level cadre, who can rescue the agency is Nick Sabatini. But he's too blunt to be politically acceptable to the White House.
 
And on his Saturday radio address, Bush used Sturgell as the poster boy for nominations being held and not approved by the Senate.
 
Just another example to support my position that federal politicians are so removed from the every day common man and woman that they haven't a clue about real life. I believe strongly in term limits, and anyone who wants to hold office should never be elected. I believe public office should be filled via the old military draft system.
 
wsuffa said:
Given McCain's position on GA, if he wins I can't see things improving for our lot.
Click to expand...

As someone who's an independant, and libertarian on most issues, (EXCEPT GA), this year no better than the last few. I thought after 2 president elections of hard choices, this cycle may be different. I dont like McCain or anyone on the "other" party.

No matter how it ends up, hopefully things stay cheaper here than in europe. :yes:

I do find it ironic that the party typically opposing socialism, is looking at adopting similar policy choices as "government controlled capitalist" europe.
 
Speaking for Rockland County, NY citizens (who are principally landlubbers), the thoughtful prior posts of pilots analyzing the non-testimony of "Bobby" Sturgell are appreciated. We are some of the many citizens adversely affected by the proposed NY/NJ/PA Airspace Redesign. We have no quarrel with pilots. To the exact contrary. But we will expect, and effect, Regime Change at the FAA, using every lawful means available. I now ask that you please consider our (admitted non-pilot) reaction to Sturgell's performance.

Citizens in Rockland County, New York – as well as citizens in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and elsewhere – were mouth-agape aghast while watching “Bobby” Sturgell’s evasive and false under-oath testimony and answers on Thursday, February 7, 2008, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Our group "Quiet Rockland" since thanked Congress for making Mr. Sturgell’s webcast testimony and the proceedings available to all of us, real-time, and now archived, through RealPlayer software, on the Senate website.

“Bobby” Sturgell arrogantly insulted Senators Boxer, McCaskill, and Lautenberg – among all of the rest of us - with his persistent utter refusal to answer the most simple of direct “Yes or No” questions. Sturgell made Watergate conspirators sound like they testified on sodium pentothal, by comparison. Senator McCaskill asked the core essential question: “Do you think air traffic controller fatigue was a contributing factor[?]” to runway incursion mishaps – and the slipperiest of eels, the eel of Sturgell, the Sturg-eel – sought to squirm away with the scripted slime of non-answers.

“Bobby” Sturgell, acting FAA head for three months, testified that he had no prior knowledge of the San Diego aircraft near-miss a few weeks ago?

LIE.

Sturgell testified that he had no prior knowledge of recent Newark, NJ departures flying out in the wrong direction in the past few weeks?

LIE.

“Bobby” Sturgell’s nomination as proposed FAA Administrator should not be confirmed. Instead, after he first personally apologizes to Senators Boxer, McCaskill, and Lautenberg, “Bobby” Sturgell should then be INDICTED - for contempt of Congress, for rendering perjured testimony under oath, and for already putting millions of otherwise-innocent and unsuspecting Americans in harm’s way. “Quiet Rockland” has since faxed every Senator on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, asking them to please refer this matter to the AG, IG, GAO, and a Special Prosecutor – and to please now cook this eel.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
 
Now, counselor, do not be so ambivalent- tell us how you really feel and, for goodness' sake, don't hold back!

PS- Welcome to POA.
 
I would remind all concerned that this is Hangar Talk, not the Spin Zone. While Mr. Sturgell is the Acting Administrator of the FAA, and this is an aviation web site, his appointment to the permanent position is a political issue. The rhetoric above, including several accusations of perjury before Congress, are rather close to, if not over, the limits for this forum. Please -- either exercise restraint or take it to the Spin Zone.
 
I have a little different take on it Ron.

While there are some political undertones here, we're still dealing directly with Mr. Sturgell's impact on GA. My comment was probably not appropriate for Hangar Talk, since I wasn't really addressing the Sturgell issue, but other than that I think everything has been pretty GA related. Even the accusations of perjury are relevant in this context. In my opinion, Sturgell is clearly not fit to serve in my government in any capacity, especially one having such a direct impact on my vocation and avocation.
 
jtormey3 said:
Speaking for Rockland County, NY citizens (who are principally landlubbers), the thoughtful prior posts of pilots analyzing the non-testimony of "Bobby" Sturgell are appreciated. We are some of the many citizens adversely affected by the proposed NY/NJ/PA Airspace Redesign. We have no quarrel with pilots. To the exact contrary. But we will expect, and effect, Regime Change at the FAA, using every lawful means available. I now ask that you please consider our (admitted non-pilot) reaction to Sturgell's performance.

Citizens in Rockland County, New York – as well as citizens in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and elsewhere – were mouth-agape aghast while watching “Bobby” Sturgell’s evasive and false under-oath testimony and answers on Thursday, February 7, 2008, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Our group "Quiet Rockland" since thanked Congress for making Mr. Sturgell’s webcast testimony and the proceedings available to all of us, real-time, and now archived, through RealPlayer software, on the Senate website.

“Bobby” Sturgell arrogantly insulted Senators Boxer, McCaskill, and Lautenberg – among all of the rest of us - with his persistent utter refusal to answer the most simple of direct “Yes or No” questions. Sturgell made Watergate conspirators sound like they testified on sodium pentothal, by comparison. Senator McCaskill asked the core essential question: “Do you think air traffic controller fatigue was a contributing factor[?]” to runway incursion mishaps – and the slipperiest of eels, the eel of Sturgell, the Sturg-eel – sought to squirm away with the scripted slime of non-answers.

“Bobby” Sturgell, acting FAA head for three months, testified that he had no prior knowledge of the San Diego aircraft near-miss a few weeks ago?

LIE.

Sturgell testified that he had no prior knowledge of recent Newark, NJ departures flying out in the wrong direction in the past few weeks?

LIE.

“Bobby” Sturgell’s nomination as proposed FAA Administrator should not be confirmed. Instead, after he first personally apologizes to Senators Boxer, McCaskill, and Lautenberg, “Bobby” Sturgell should then be INDICTED - for contempt of Congress, for rendering perjured testimony under oath, and for already putting millions of otherwise-innocent and unsuspecting Americans in harm’s way. “Quiet Rockland” has since faxed every Senator on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, asking them to please refer this matter to the AG, IG, GAO, and a Special Prosecutor – and to please now cook this eel.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Click to expand...

Hi John,

Welcome to the Pilots of America forum, it's great to see you on here. I definitely share your thoughts on the confirmation of Bobby Sturgell as FAA Administrator, though our reasoning and background is very different. With respect to the general aviation community, "Bobby" is clearly not fit to serve as FAA Administrator, or any other politically appointed position in our government. Despite his claims to have once been a commercial pilot, he just doesn't understand the concerns shared by the greater good of the pilot community (user fees, the safety of our national airspace system, etc) nor the issues Congress has addressed in recent nomination hearings (and in past testimony). I applaud your efforts to effect a "regime change" within the FAA, it is definitely needed.

That said, as a pilot, NY airspace guru, and Fairfield County resident, I do disagree with many of the issues raised by the organization you represent and the Alliance for Sensible Airspace Planning (AfSAP). Since I have a great amount of experience in the NY airspace (and thus, money invested), it's probably no doubt that I would have a different perspective than the general public within the area represented by these various organizations. I absolutely recognize the potential for the displacement of noise created by IFR aircraft, but at the same time, realize that many of the FAA-proposed changes to the area airspace would significantly reduce delays throughout the nation, reduce fuel consumption (and thus, passenger ticket prices), reduce air traffic controller workload during the current staffing crisis, and ultimately provide greater relief for the general aviation community. It would be a great pleasure to sit down with you and other individuals to gain a pilot-type perspective on the issues and I personally hope a unique medium could be reached between area citizens and the traveling public/pilots/air traffic controllers as we move forward into the future of air travel. I would also suggest this would not be possible without a different nominee for FAA Administrator, one who would cut out the current airspace redesign BS with the help of industry experts, pilots, and the affected community.

Safe travels...
 
Last edited:
gibbons said:
I have a little different take on it Ron.

While there are some political undertones here, we're still dealing directly with Mr. Sturgell's impact on GA. My comment was probably not appropriate for Hangar Talk, since I wasn't really addressing the Sturgell issue, but other than that I think everything has been pretty GA related. Even the accusations of perjury are relevant in this context. In my opinion, Sturgell is clearly not fit to serve in my government in any capacity, especially one having such a direct impact on my vocation and avocation.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Chip. The Spin Zone is described, primarily, as such:

""The Spin Zone" is the forum for discussions that touch on non-aviation related topics of a potentially highly charged nature. "

So the original intent of The Spin Zone was for political discussions of a non aviation related nature.

Unfortunately for us as Pilots, politics does affect aviation, and when politics and aviation are forced to mix, in those unpleasant situations, Hangar Talk or even Flight Following are appropriate forums, in my view, for such discussions, because they do concern all who participate on this forum.

BUT - with that said - The Spin Zone is also a much more highly charged atmosphere, and the participants are given some extra latitude with regards to the Rules of Conduct. As such, we expect anyone who participates in it to develop a good, thick skin, or stay the heck out. This is NOT true of political discussions concerning aviation.

Please remember that when discussion Aviation related politics on the main forum, THE RULES OF CONDUCT ARE IN FULL FORCE, and we will apply the same, stricter enforcement of civil discussion that we do on all other aviation related topics.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Please, tell me this is some sort of joke. If it isn't, Bobby Sturgell sure is.

Sigh . . .

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
This is the smartest message-board constituency to which I have ever posted.
I don’t say that to placate. I wish that I had been a pilot. I never had the courage. Thanks for acknowledging, and thanks for the welcomes like SCCutler’s. I know that a number of you might differ with what I say. That’s OK. I am only looking for 51%, not unanimity.

Jason Herman, I accept your offer. By phone (1-212-410-4142), or in person, it would be my privilege, and admittedly a great benefit to me, to hear you out further, to ask you questions, and to incorporate your and your colleagues’ knowledge into my next (proverbial, and fully-lawful) broadside upon the FAA. There will be many more such proverbial broadsides – even including a planned call for a nationwide general union strike in sympathy and support of the ATC’s who cannot themselves strike. Please stand by for that.

Please also know that I have no connection to the Alliance for Sensible Airspace Planning, other than staying in communication with them, nor with NJCAAN or other groups of comparable but not identical alignment. I'm one of the co-founders of "Quiet Rockland", only.

There are other citizen groups spending tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars monitoring and litigating noise. I’m not a noise guy. I played in rock and roll bands with Jojo Hermann, and Tom Morello. How could I be? I’m about safety. It’s safety that these FAA management idiots cannot handle. That’s horrifying. That’s terrifying.

Jason, I do appreciate your acknowledgment that you have money invested in NY airspace. That’s exactly the honesty that Blakey, Kelley, Sturgell, and the FAA never demonstrated. Personally I could care less about passenger ticket prices. But my beef is with your conclusion that “the FAA-proposed changes to the area airspace would significantly reduce delays throughout the nation” and “reduce fuel consumption”. I am concerned that you bought-in (no, no pun intended - this time) to the FAA’s propaganda.

Those two quotes, when I isolate them from the rest of your very thoughtful and very diplomatic post, sound to me like they came out of one of Made Marion’s old press releases, or Steve Kelley’s heel-clicking act. That’s the very blame-the-victim psy-ops methodology that the FAA premeditatively adopted while thinking they thereby could soften up the Northeast citizens: “Make ‘em feel guilty. First make ‘em feel that THEY are the problem. Then they’ll be so beaten down, that they won’t object so much, when we the FAA desecrate their homes, health, habitats, and landscapes”.

Well guess what? The FAA miscalculated. The FAA ran into an Irish-Italian who HAS no guilt (about aero-mercantile oppression, anyway). Lapsing has its privileges.

I’ll give you two what-I-believe-are quantitative and scientific refutations of the above-quoted statements, in light of Cap’n Ron’s exhortation for a no-spin zone, which I respect. After all, he might be the guy that I hear flying right over my house right now as I am typing this note!:

1. I have FAA’s Steve Kelley on videotape and audiotape from July 2007, stating that the average time-savings of the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign is “3 minutes per flight”. Within the space of about three (3) months thereafter, under intense pressure from GWB and others, “Bobby” Sturgell blurted out (written transcript of which at least one NY lawyer saved to file) that the very same Redesign would cause an across-the-board efficiency savings of “20%”. Now I want you, a professional pilot, a highly intelligent man, and a guy who obviously knows better - to effect that next-step multiplication, solve for “X”, and then tell me that the mean flight-length in the United States of America is fifteen (15) minutes.

The fact of the matter is, to further quantify, you give me thirty (30) minutes to cross-examine Kelley and Sturgell under oath, in a forum wherein perjury actually means something like the Southern District –
15 minutes on Kelley, and 15 minutes on Sturgell – and, if each of them make statements consistent with their prior statements quoted above, then (at least) one of them is going to jail that night. Oh. wait a minute.
I forgot. Sturgell will just perjure himself again, just like he did – repeatedly - before the Senate CST Committee on February 7, 2008. Emily Latella of Ft. Lee, New Jersey. “Never mind”.

2. Look at the flight-map posted at “http://www.QuietRockland.com” – the second one. Incidentally, this is the pictorial map that we Rocklanders had to construct ourselves, because the FAA deliberately never provided us any map showing what Rockland towns were proposed to be flown-over. The shortest distance between two points, at least on that scale of map covering that mileage, is (virtually) a straight line. Then, riddle me, why does the west-to-east flight path look like a hump-back whale cutting up and through the Semitic communities of Monsey, Kaser, New Square – my working-class cop-and-fireman hamlet of Pearl River and neighbor Nanuet – and over the homes of persons of color in Spring Valley and Chestnut Ridge – as opposed to a more southern and straight-line route through the plush bedrooms of north and northwest Jersey? If this was all about efficiency and fuel-savings, then why didn’t the FAA solve for the hypotenuse instead? That one is asked and answered. Geometry doesn’t lie. Neither does the algebra in Item #1 hereinabove.

Here’s the deal. You, like many others, including many other extremely bright people like yourself and including public officials in power, have been misled. The only difference between you and me, is I trust people a lot less, overall. The Redesign is in NO WAY about time-efficiency and fuel-savings. I have live ATC witnesses ready to attest that the Redesign started out of an economic turf-war between Boston and NY ATC’s, and I’ve got documents and Powerpoints to prove it. As engendered, the Redesign had nothing to do with time-efficiency or fuel-efficiency. You have been lied to.

The FAA re-purposed Redesign while they thought no one intelligent was looking, to simply put more planes in the air per individual unit of time. More planes in the air per unit time equals more money – the thing you and your post are honest enough to acknowledge - but the very thing that Blakey, Kelley, Sturgell, Mica, and all the other political hacks and imposters have never owned up to, and will never own up to. Why is this money so important? Because government aviation work is a revolving door. Look at where Blakey ended up. As the Aerononymous song now going around the web and e-mail says about Sturgell, to paraphrase, “when he gets out, he’ll make seven figures”. See and hear:

www.TheHappyHarbor.com

The FAA folks are padding the pockets of industry now, so that their own pockets will be reciprocally-padded when they get out later. Again, as the song at the above "TheHappyHarbor" website says, those McMansions in DelMarVa are not getting any cheaper.

What I ask, is that pilots and non-pilots alike stand together - just for a bit - but now. Some of you are my father’s age. Some of you are my age. Some of you are younger. But for one moment in time and history, for the sake of aviation safety and also for the sake of the safety and health of those of us who usually are happy to let you fly over our heads and homes, let’s take this one historical opportunity to demand the truth and not settle for anything less. We were lied to about Yalta. We were lied to about death-camps. We were lied to about Bay of Pigs. We were lied to about JFK’s assassination. We were lied to about Watergate. We were lied to about Iran/Contra. We were even lied to about a girl with a beret, assuming it mattered. Why not, this time, not accept the lies, and stare them down deep and coldly in the eyes? Unblinking.

My fax number is 1-212-410-2380. Any documentation which ANYONE would like to fax me which purports to support the notion that Redesign enhances time-efficiency and fuel-savings, well, I’m loading the fax machine with paper now. Just please don’t be surprised if you receive some paper from me in reply. I’m like that.

For some anecdotal information about how I personally have been lied to by the FAA, including how their FOIA folks falsified documents and sent them to me, please see:

http://tinyurl.com/3yd9em

Please also see:

www.QuietRockland.com
www.anyonebutmica.com

and the “youtube” video entitled “The FAA Is Lying To America…”

Thank you for the continued opportunity to be heard - and safe flight to all of you too.
 
I don't necessarily believe I have bought into the "lie" that the airspace redesign will definitely reduce delays and fuel consumption. It certainly holds the potential if changes are appropriately made in conjunction with the existing ones under the current proposal. I didn't mean to sound like a Maid Marion press release (slightly offensive). I am just as much against the FAA as you are, for many of the same reasons.

With regards to the "west-to-east coast flight path" it is a little more complicated than looking at a picture with lines connecting the dots. Take a look at the 2,000+ converging courses above, below, and at various altitudes in the flight levels (18,000+ feet). Though somewhat jagged in appearance, the route offers the greatest level of safety when the NAS is staffed properly. That said, it's not efficient nor beneficial to anyone at all and should be reevaluated (it actually should have been reevaluated 10 or 15 years ago). The FAA has invested little to no time investigating and creating new strategies (Q-routes) with respect to aircraft routing. The "system" is still 50 years old and no doubt we are running on that technology at the present time. New GPS technologies (RNP) offer a tremendous opportunity to create integrated routing for all phases of flight; the FAA just doesn't have the qualified resources (ie: smart people, people that can actually complete a successful end product at work) to do anything significant about it.

Please check your private message inbox for my contact information if you are interested in meeting with me.

Safe flying,
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tormey,

With regards to this portion of your post:
2. Look at the flight-map posted at “http://www.QuietRockland.com” – the second one. Incidentally, this is the pictorial map that we Rocklanders had to construct ourselves, because the FAA deliberately never provided us any map showing what Rockland towns were proposed to be flown-over. The shortest distance between two points, at least on that scale of map covering that mileage, is (virtually) a straight line. Then, riddle me, why does the west-to-east flight path look like a hump-back whale cutting up and through the Semitic communities of Monsey, Kaser, New Square – my working-class cop-and-fireman hamlet of Pearl River and neighbor Nanuet – and over the homes of persons of color in Spring Valley and Chestnut Ridge – as opposed to a more southern and straight-line route through the plush bedrooms of north and northwest Jersey? If this was all about efficiency and fuel-savings, then why didn’t the FAA solve for the hypotenuse instead? That one is asked and answered. Geometry doesn’t lie. Neither does the algebra in Item #1 hereinabove.
Click to expand...
In looking at the map referenced (and by the way, your link doesn't work, but http://www.quietrockland.com/ will)...

The reason the flight paths are round about is becuase of several major factors, as far as I can tell:
1) Airport runways are fixed, straight lines. Whatever directions the runways face, the airplanes need to take off and land in those directions. Airports may have multiple runways, but the runways used at any given time are determined by prevailing winds. Therefore, it is necessary for the airplanes on approach to line up with the runways, and for the safety and comfort of the passengers, that lining up needs to be done gently and slowly for a "straight in approach". I'm sure any pilot here would be willing to demonstrate to you what the alternative feels like. Most passengers in commercial jets generally don't like 90 degree turns executed in 10 seconds.

2) Airplanes move fast. Simple physics dictates that an aircraft moving at 200mph turning at a slow enough rate not to worry the passengers will, naturally, require a lot of distance to make that turn.

The implication of your comment seems to be that the plan is deliberately routing traffic over busy areas simply to annoy the people who live there. The reality is far from it. The further from the airport that ATC can line up the planes in sequence for landing, the easier it is to accomplish, and the safer it is for both the people on board, and the people below.

No matter where the planes come *from*, they all have to land in the same direction, based on the wind - so the approach plans have to bring together planes coming from all directions, allowing more than sufficient room for navigation, and giving them ample space in which to line up for landing - all without unduly risking or frightening the passengers on board.`
 
Thank you, Greebo. (Can you please clarify for me what hyperlink doesn't work? - because, I'm not finding the same tech trouble this morning). Thank you Jason, too. Jason, there was no offense intended towards you. I'm grateful for your contact. The offense I intend is towards FAA dogma and FAA deceit. I do believe that the FAA specifically targeted lower-income communities when mapping the new proposed pathways. So, too, do the litigators handling many of the 13 and counting federal court litigations, and their community-clients. When you read the voluminous caselaw on, and other historic accounts of, past similar fact patterns, the FAA regularly violates principles of environmental justice like a recidivist junkie. In Rockland we are all reading that reality against the routinely-Anglo names of senior FAA management. I don't think the FAA even realizes how obvious this all is to the extremely-angered minority communities within Rockland and Jersey right now. And I lived through the 1960s, and I don't think, as Martha Stewart might say, that's a "good thing". Also, there are also two schools of thought on the topic of flight paths that have been in place for approximately 50 years: (A) it's old and needs to be updated; and (B) if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only reason "it" may currently be perceived as being "broke", is because of the compulsive neo-overscheduling and neo-oversaturation of our skies allowed by "gatekeeper" and supposed regulator FAA. When I was sure of that, is when I read a few months ago about a reported ten-dollar flight from the East Coast to Ohio. The bottom line is that neither the FAA nor anyone else should be causing, sanctioning, or otherwise encouraging revised low-flying flight paths of passenger-filled, fuel-laden jets over densely-populated residential communities - of whatever race, of whatever color, of whatever persuasion. Jason, I will hit my in-box and come back to you off-line. It will take me a while today as I have a ton of outgoing stacked up on my runway as you might imagine. I do also want to note that no one has yet explained to me the mystery of the Sturgell "20% solution" and the resultant mean 15-minute flights as cited in my prior post - yet - but I am here and willing to listen if anyone wants to dig into that issue with me. All the information you are giving me, is information I need, and information I will use, and I appreciate it even in face of any disagreement or divergence in philosophy. Respectfully, John J. Tormey III, Esq.
 
The bottom line is that neither the FAA nor anyone else should be causing, sanctioning, or otherwise encouraging revised low-flying flight paths of passenger-filled, fuel-laden jets over densely-populated residential communities - of whatever race, of whatever color, of whatever persuasion.
Click to expand...
So, you want the major airports to be moved...what, 2 driving hours away from the center of any densely populated area?

Come on - you know you don't want that. You want the convenience of being able to travel by air. Traveling by air doesn't do much good if you put the airports so far from cities that you might as well drive. Airports get big because they service big communities - because thats where the demand is. They can't provide the service the traveling public demands without flying OVER that same public.

So what you're really saying is you want to have your cake but eat it too - you want to have the airport but you don't want it flying over *you*.
 
Dear Greebo:

(Please call me John).

As Peter Falk's Lieutenant character might say, "One more thing...".

Regarding your note: "The implication of [my] comment seems to be that the plan is deliberately routing traffic over busy areas simply to annoy the people who live there".

Come on. Not only did I not say that - but you can't even infer that from my prior comment under the most tortured of interpretations. As difficult it is for a litigator, I'm trying as hard as I can to respect the no-spin directive - but I need you to, as well.

Rather, the FAA's premeditated plan, as it has been towards other communities as reflected in decades of prior caselaw, was to take the path of least resistance. They were trying to run the clock out. They were trying to buy time. They were trying to cram-down the Redesign before incurring serious opposition.

Accordingly, they picked Rockland County to be the de facto new EWR Runway 22, because they predicted that Rockland would be the slowest to wake up, the most disenfranchised, and the least likely to complain. Compared to tony Bergen. Compared to tony Westchester. Compared to tony Connecticut. Right now Connecticut is looking at 150 overflights per day. We're looking at 600 in Rockland.

The FAA's gambit even seemed to work, for a spell. They were almost right. But in the end, they blew the gambit, big-time. They bought themselves a few months of Rockland lethargy, but in doing so, they exposed their environmental justice flank. When you come visit us in Rockland, I will take you to the churches and synagogues and show you the faces of the Semitic, African-American, and working-class children whose futures and way of life are threatened by the Redesign. These are the faces that the FAA "officials" never allowed themselves to see - never had the courage to see.

To that extent, they thereby awakened the previously-sleeping beast.

They also inadvertently trip-wired at least one therein-embedded lawyer with an extremely badass attitude when provoked who (to paraphrase Orson) takes out no fangs before it's time. A previously-assumed "ordinary" citizen. A mainstream-downshifter who moved to Rockland from Manhattan and who bought in to that American dream, specifically FOR the peace and quiet. A man who is now on the FAA like, dare I say it, white on rice.

Last thing. I since realized Emily Latella was not from Ft. Lee, but her pen pal Mr. Richard Feder was. That hit me as I walked by Gilda's Club early this morning.

Respectfully,

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
"Quiet Rockland"
 
Counselor,

I haven't bothered to read the entire quietrockland position because honestly, as soon as I see anything like that, my NIMBY alarm goes off. I did check out the maps, and regardless of what the "quiet skies" groups would want to have everyone believe, the FAA and airport planners do not sit down and say "Hey, this looks like a neighborhood to terrorize, let's make the runway line up with it to make everyone angry." There's wind studies to be done, other airports to take into consideration, additional air traffic (especially in the Northeast Corridor) to keep separated.

You always want to make your best effort to land and take off directly into the wind. I'm sure you driven down the road with a 30 or 40 mile per hour wind blowing perpendicular to the roadway. You know how that feels while you're in a car, which is not airborne, unless you are driving a Donkevoort, in which case the wind may send it airborne. So the primary objective is to lay out the runways so you land or take off into where the wind blows from most of the time. Sure you'll get those occasional times when the wind isn't "perfect" for the runway configuration at an airport, but that's the first thing that is considered when doing runway layouts.

Secondly, ESPECIALLY in the NYC area there are two other major airports to worry about, JFK, and LaGuardia. You are not going to route arrivals or departures into Newark over JFK or LGA. That is going to spell disaster for the already extremely busy New York air traffic controllers.

Jason can give a lot more details as far as the routing goes, since he's our resident ATC-guru. But the beginning or end of the runway does not equal the beginning or end of the flight path of the airplane upon arrival or departure. Ever try make a 90 degree turn 60mph safely in your car? You can't do it. And neither can an airplane doing 3 times that speed with thousands of times more weight. You can expect arrival corridors going into any airport to be at least 10 miles when arriving. How would you like to be on an airliner doing 200mph barely off the ground feeling like you weigh 400 plus pounds in seat 14A and just as the plane rolls out of the turn you feel the plane start to wiggle back and forth as the pilot tries to bring the plane to a stop? Probably wouldn't fly again would you? So we've got an arrival corridor, and it's going to happen to go over some houses. There's no way around it.

On departure it's a bit easier as far as the length of the corridor needed, that can be shortened up a bit, but you can't just start turning airliners wherever and whenever you like. You don't merge onto the LIE or the Jersey Turnpike with your eyes closed with no concern of the cars that already may be there do you? Well you might if you were from Boston, but that's another discussion. If you are headed west out of Newark you've got traffic from Boston and other points northeast already in the air the controllers have to merge you with. Not to mention the departures out of JFK and LGA. That also have to merge with the traffic already out there. Yes the sky is big, and yes we have three dimensions we can work with, but everybody is wanting the same route, and the same altitude, and the best speeds they can to keep their passengers happy. Happy passengers are made with cheap flights, and quick flights, and that's where your routing and altitudes come into play.

You've got 3 major airports in a very small area, not to mention all the overflow traffic that goes into White Plains and Teterboro all "merging" onto a highway, It's not just take off and turn on course solution for departure, and it's not a wait till the last minute jerk the wheel to cut across four lanes of traffic to make your exit from the LIE situation for arrivals either. That's not even done in small, general aviation aircraft. Well, not outside of airshows anyway.

As far as the FAA having their up up their backside and not having a clue on other things, I would agree. But don't believe there is a conspiracy to fly over certain neighborhoods. It's just the way things work out.

Ed Frederick
Commercial Pilot
Airport Manager
 
Last edited:
jtormey3 said:
...I wish that I had been a pilot. I never had the courage.

...Thank you for the continued opportunity to be heard - and safe flight to all of you too.
Click to expand...

First John, Ya know its never to late to learn to fly folks do it in thier 40s, 50, 60s 70s and even older. It may actually help you understand Airtraffic routes better. Not saying it will change your mind but may help you understand better.

Second thanks for the good wishes.
 
John,

Thanks for your perspective on this. It's always interesting to hear from a non-pilot on aviation related issues.

After reading your last post, my caution would be for you not to assume that just because the traffic isn't routed directly to and from the airport that there is a conspiracy in place. Trust me, many, many pilots wonder just what the hell the people who build the routes were thinking.

Without doubt there is some fiefdom building going on in some quarters of the FAA, and aircraft are routed in such a way to increase traffic counts in certain airspace (Springfield, MO for example). There are always flow issues into and out of nearby airports, which create some major routing issues in high density areas (Teterboro, NJ comes to mind). And while I know that the folks who plan these routes are supposed to consider what lies underneath, I hope that their primary concern is to keep airplanes from running into each other.

I'm not defending the FAA, the current administration, nor the Sturgell nomination. Far from it. But I'm glad to see you and Jason are going to get together to discuss this. I suspect he can help shed some light on some of the issues involved in routing traffic in that part of the country. You may discover other less devious reasons for the routes.

As for Sturgell's "20% solution"; typical buracratic nonsense.

If, in the end, you do find that the FAA has chosen its routes not out of concern for safety but because of the economic condition and ethnic mix on the ground below, then by all means Rage, Rage Against the Machine. You'll sure have my support.
 
Dear Greebo:

Regarding: "So, you want the major airports to be moved...what, 2 driving hours away from the center of any densely populated area? Come on - you know you don't want that. You want the convenience of being able to travel by air".

You're assuming way too much. You're assuming that I fly a lot. (I don't, not anymore since 9/11). You're assuming that I like to fly. (I don't, although I wish I could enjoy it like y'all do). But worst of all, you're assuming that I want everything easy. You're wrong.

I like to drive. You like to fly. You listen to "Learning To Fly" by Tom Petty in the cockpit. And I'll listen to "Road Fever" by Foghat in the Ford, featuring my late friend Rod "The Bottle" Price may he rest in peace.

I am one of the (perhaps rare, perhaps not) people who would gladly drive through less-congested locales, north from Rockland to Stewart, or even farther north if I had to, to simply avoid Jersey or the Grand Central or the Belt. And, if I knew that that same northern driving route thereupon spared thousands upon thousands of innocent people a spoliation or desecration of their home environment into which they put their life savings, then I would add on the hour or more each way of drive time as a sacrifice for their American way of life, and my own by implication. Besides, I'll have some good music in the car.

To all otherwise inclined, I ask, be very careful of course about any knee-jerk NIMBY accusation or inference. The fact of the matter is, the alternative is relinquishing your own backyards to perps and other predators, and that is essentially communism. If that's anyone's real worldview, then there is a place called North Korea where I am told communism still "thrives". THIS country, on the other hand, was built upon property rights - "40 acres and a mule", "54 - 40 or fight" - and there are even a few references in the U.S. Constitution to property rights. Any one of you, I very much hope, would fight like a crazed wolverine if your property rights were ever threatened - and moreso if anyone's greed, idiocy, or even inattention put YOUR family at risk.

As for the volume and quality of helpful comments back in the form of all these posts - Wow! Litigators, especially those arguing appeals, speak of how much they like having an "active panel". I love an active panel. This is an active panel. I only wish I had found this website and all of you back last July when I first went face-to-face with Steve Kelley.

The reason I am signing off for now, is because I have some work to do, and I also know that I am never going to drop my belief that the flight path was purposefully drawn through the path-of-least-resistance seemingly-disenfranchised community. As Tom Petty has sung, "You Believe What You Want To Believe". And so will I.

I do hope that you will let me back on this board and that you will be as helpfully responsive to me and the people of Rockland County, once I might again have something worthwhile to bring up on the board. Thank you. I think it's time I yield to the pilots for whom this community was designed, quitting early like Ted Williams, and not risk overstaying my welcome. It's time.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
"Quiet Rockland"
 
Peter Falk's Lt.: "Just one more thing..."

Please look at the documents that I FOIL'd from the Town of Warwick (NY) several months ago, regarding Redesign. I had to fight to get those 400+ pages. The documents should be posted at my FOIL record at:

http://tinyurl.com/3yd9em

If for whatever reason you cannot locate the Warwick documents at that website, let me know please, and I will either re-post them, or else copy them directly to you at your request.

What the Warwick documents show, is how one northerly privileged community, looks to have been successful in using political pressure and grassroots activism (including one VERY persuasive art gallery owner), to cause a flight path affecting them to be pushed eastward at least a few miles away from a nature preserve that they rightfully cared about, and away from the center of their town. You can actually see what appears to be the end-result, at the second map at:

www.quietrockland.com

Naturally, anyone who has further or different personal knowledge of what went down regarding Warwick that did NOT get reduced to paper, (or if it is on other paper I don't yet have), I'd love to hear about it. My e-mail is jtormey@optonline.net and my fax is on one of the prior posts above.

The point is, if political pressure moves previously-FAA-"proposed" air routes - and we know it does, not just from the Warwick documents, but also from what happened with Larchmont and Mamaroneck too, after those communities spent over one hundred grand on lobbyist/consultants to make stuff happen - then why should anyone assume that the FAA WOULDN'T seek to minimize political and community back-lash when designating new routes? That's one of the FIRST things they'd do. That's a "noise mitigation" they actually MUST care about. And assuming 47,000 FAA employees, my bet is at least 250 of them are responsible for nothing but conjuring up ways to minimize community back-lash. But then again, I'm just a conspiracy theorist - right?

Please remember that like movie studios, it's those (fill-in-the-blank) lawyers running the FAA, too. That means that everything is premeditated. Nothing they do is by accident. Please don't ever cut them that much conceptual slack, or it will turn out to be them pinioning YOU on the differential, rather than the other way around like it should be. They almost pinioned Rockland on the same differential. Funny how they didn't get away with it.

My best,

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Now-REALLY-Quiet Rockland, I promise...
 
My parents live under the traffic pattern of a class C airport, and share a fenceline with an Interstate Highway. Guess which is louder - it ain't the airport. Be careful about trying to rid the skies of planes. There's a bunch of homeowners who may want to rid you of your car.
 
jtormey3 said:
Thank you, Greebo. (Can you please clarify for me what hyperlink doesn't work? - because, I'm not finding the same tech trouble this morning). Thank you Jason, too. Jason, there was no offense intended towards you. I'm grateful for your contact. The offense I intend is towards FAA dogma and FAA deceit. I do believe that the FAA specifically targeted lower-income communities when mapping the new proposed pathways. So, too, do the litigators handling many of the 13 and counting federal court litigations, and their community-clients. When you read the voluminous caselaw on, and other historic accounts of, past similar fact patterns, the FAA regularly violates principles of environmental justice like a recidivist junkie. In Rockland we are all reading that reality against the routinely-Anglo names of senior FAA management. I don't think the FAA even realizes how obvious this all is to the extremely-angered minority communities within Rockland and Jersey right now. And I lived through the 1960s, and I don't think, as Martha Stewart might say, that's a "good thing". Also, there are also two schools of thought on the topic of flight paths that have been in place for approximately 50 years: (A) it's old and needs to be updated; and (B) if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only reason "it" may currently be perceived as being "broke", is because of the compulsive neo-overscheduling and neo-oversaturation of our skies allowed by "gatekeeper" and supposed regulator FAA. When I was sure of that, is when I read a few months ago about a reported ten-dollar flight from the East Coast to Ohio. The bottom line is that neither the FAA nor anyone else should be causing, sanctioning, or otherwise encouraging revised low-flying flight paths of passenger-filled, fuel-laden jets over densely-populated residential communities - of whatever race, of whatever color, of whatever persuasion. Jason, I will hit my in-box and come back to you off-line. It will take me a while today as I have a ton of outgoing stacked up on my runway as you might imagine. I do also want to note that no one has yet explained to me the mystery of the Sturgell "20% solution" and the resultant mean 15-minute flights as cited in my prior post - yet - but I am here and willing to listen if anyone wants to dig into that issue with me. All the information you are giving me, is information I need, and information I will use, and I appreciate it even in face of any disagreement or divergence in philosophy. Respectfully, John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Click to expand...
This reads like an insane rant.

Yes FAA lawyers sit around plotting the downfall of minority communities.


It seems like you are getting yourself wrapped around the axle for nothing here. The aircraft are going to be passing over Rockland County at no less than what, 7000 feet? Give me a break. That's more than a mile. At one mile, you are going to be hard pressed to hear aircraft, especially those with reduced power beginning their descents. Hardly ruining the lives of anybody they fly over as you seem to claim.
The jets leaving LGA's runway 13 start their turn to the north over my apartment in Queens 2000 feet. At 2000 feet the aircraft are quieter than the traffic on the Van Wyck nearby.
Also, since you are a lawyer in private practice, your low income argument seems a little disingenuous.
You sound more like a worried homeowner, hell bent on protecting their property value from some imaginary depression.

You enjoy the benefits of living in this metropolis. No small part of these benefits comes from having access to reliable and rapid transportation to the rest of the US.
 
Last edited:
Hey Rob,
That is no insane rant; the FAA's actions have been an affront to all Americans. It's interesting how you by pseudonym posted a reply to Attorney John Tormey many hours after he signed off from the board. A couple of points to your reply....
1 - I'm surprised that a pilot, however young in years, would mis-state the altitude of an aircraft by such a large margin of error. Actually, according to the FAA's own reports and figures, Rocklanders can expect redesign aircraft at 5000 ft or lower. It's a good thing you won't be flying any of those aircraft.
2 - Your point about not being able to hear the aircraft is baloney, the FAA has already told us what the increase in noise is going to be and for many of us it is substantial. It is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
3- You choose to live next to the Van wyck, the noise must not mean much to you in any case. Many of us moved to quiet areas to escape that. The FAA has no right to alter our quality of life for 3 MINUTES in delay savings. (per the FAA - that is what is gained).

The noise is not only main concern, the safety issue is another. If you have been following the issue, the current redesign is not safe. You should be very worried that some uncertified or very tired controller doesn't make a mistake and and send you too close to another aircraft (or worse God forbid). The FAA is rushing this in a very unsafe manner.
 
Thomas Sullivan said:
Hey Rob,The noise is not only main concern, the safety issue is another. If you have been following the issue, the current redesign is not safe. You should be very worried that some uncertified or very tired controller doesn't make a mistake and and send you too close to another aircraft (or worse God forbid). The FAA is rushing this in a very unsafe manner.
Click to expand...

It may be helpful to clarify by specifically pointing out those safety concerns you mention. Regarding your last point, to be quite honest, that potential exists just as much today as it will in years to come. In fact, there have been thousands of operational errors associated with the misguidance of developmental and fatigued air traffic controllers over the last few years. Temporarily disregarding the safety factors involved in the airspace redesign (which is by no means unimportant), the current system itself is unsafe at present. As a pilot who operates in and out of the New York airspace, rushing the airspace redesign isn't going to make me feel any more unsafe. There is just as much of a potential for a developmental in N90 to send me into a news chopper overflying the Hudson as before. The NAS is unsafe either way you look at it, redesign or not.

Safe flying,
 
jtormey3 said:
Jason, I will hit my in-box and come back to you off-line. It will take me a while today as I have a ton of outgoing stacked up on my runway as you might imagine.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to it, John. Let me know if you don't receive it on the forums and I will send it to you via e-mail.

Safe flying,
 
I'm not sure where John and Thomas found us. But, it seems consideration of safety has gone out the window. NY is a crowded area and a major business center for the United States. That's not going to change. I think your argument is with NY TRACON. Even so, safety rules.

I guess I'm puzzled why you folks are bringing your argument here. :dunno:

As far as the "pseudonym", that's how these boards are. Many folks are on here by a name that applies to their profession, hobby or whatever. They are pretty well known by others on the board. Your attack on Rob is not justified.
 
Thomas Sullivan said:
Hey Rob,
That is no insane rant; the FAA's actions have been an affront to all Americans. It's interesting how you by pseudonym posted a reply to Attorney John Tormey many hours after he signed off from the board. A couple of points to your reply....
1 - I'm surprised that a pilot, however young in years, would mis-state the altitude of an aircraft by such a large margin of error. Actually, according to the FAA's own reports and figures, Rocklanders can expect redesign aircraft at 5000 ft or lower. It's a good thing you won't be flying any of those aircraft.
2 - Your point about not being able to hear the aircraft is baloney, the FAA has already told us what the increase in noise is going to be and for many of us it is substantial. It is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
3- You choose to live next to the Van wyck, the noise must not mean much to you in any case. Many of us moved to quiet areas to escape that. The FAA has no right to alter our quality of life for 3 MINUTES in delay savings. (per the FAA - that is what is gained).

The noise is not only main concern, the safety issue is another. If you have been following the issue, the current redesign is not safe. You should be very worried that some uncertified or very tired controller doesn't make a mistake and and send you too close to another aircraft (or worse God forbid). The FAA is rushing this in a very unsafe manner.
Click to expand...
First on your personal attacks:
1. I choose to use a pseudonym because I want to avoid having my name spread about the Internet. For the most part I come to this site because I am surrounded by friends and like-minded people. I have over 600 posts on this site, you have one. The people who I care about here know who I am.
2. ATTORNEY John choose to leave the site, he's welcome to come back and respond. You don't end debate on a public site by simply leaving, so I can continue debating.
3. You are also wrong about my choosing to live near the Van Wyck. I don't choose to live near the Van Wyck, I live there because I have to. Nobody chooses to live near an expressway in Queens, we end up here because we can't afford nice large houses in Rockland County.
4. You benefit from having a major international airport nearby, now you share some of the price of that benefit. Big deal.
5. I fly at the altitudes that air traffic instructs me to, provided the altitudes provide a safe distance from the ground below, just like every other pilot in the world.


Now onwards:
3 minutes of time saved per aircraft is a huge amount. Since your group claims to be environmentally minded, I'm sure you can see what a huge fuel and carbon emission reduction you gain from having some 600 aircraft per day spend 3 less mins running their engines.
Additionally I fail to see how opening up more airspace to controllers increases the risk of mid air collisions. More space=more room between airplanes. Your comments about safety risk only serve to underscore your lack of understanding of the aviation world.
I've gotten the 7000 feet figure from pretty reliable sources, and from common sense. (The southern tip of Rockland county is about 30 miles away from EWR, even using a pretty flat 30:1 descent ratio the aircraft will still be at around 6500 feet over Rockland County). If you have more accurate figures, or something to say otherwise, give me hard data. I'll happily eat my crow if you can show me an FAA publication which indicates that the aircraft will be substantially lower than 7000 feet, for any appreciable time over Rockland County.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top