Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Bill Mulcahy" wrote:

General Aviation To Be Permanently Restricted From Washington, DC? While
of
course I am for ANY restriction on aviation...anywhere, I find it
suspicious
that the FAA wants to ban small general aviation aircraft coming even
miles
from Washington, DC while allowing the nearby "Reagan" National Airport
to
operate less than a mile from the Pentagon and about two miles from the
National Mall, the White House and the Capitol Building!!! Why not close
Reagan National permanently? It was done for months after 9/11.

3 weeks, in a time of vastly reduced air traffic.

The reason,
as everyone knows, is because Reagan National Airport is used by
congressmen
and senators as their own private airport; so they are not about to
close it.

Oh please, spare us the demagoguery. Congress is 535 people. National
Airport handles over 50,000 airline passengers per day, and closing it
would transform the D.C. region into one of the worst-served regions in
the country as far as airline service.

The danger from this airport is not only from terrorists but could come
from just an ordinary airplane accident. On January 12, 1981 a plane
with 79
took off in a snowstorm (nice going boys) and crashed in the Potomac
River,
killing 74.

The only fatalities were from those on the plane. How is that "danger"

Unfortunately this is not the case:

"There were 74 passengers, including 3 infants, and 5 crew members on board.
All but 5 died. The aircraft struck 7 occupied vehicles on an Interstate
highway bridge and tore away a railing, killing 4 more people before it
plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. A total of 78 persons died
in the worst accident in Washington DC history. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

However, the fact that there were other fatalities does not diminish your
point.

Paul Nixon

"khobar" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The danger from this airport is not only from terrorists but could come
from just an ordinary airplane accident. On January 12, 1981 a plane with 79
took off in a snowstorm (nice going boys) and crashed in the Potomac River,
killing 74.

The only fatalities were from those on the plane. How is that "danger"

Unfortunately this is not the case:

"There were 74 passengers, including 3 infants, and 5 crew members on board.
All but 5 died. The aircraft struck 7 occupied vehicles on an Interstate
highway bridge and tore away a railing, killing 4 more people before it
plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. A total of 78 persons died
in the worst accident in Washington DC history. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

However, the fact that there were other fatalities does not diminish your
point.

My own website article (!) that has been online since 1997 agrees that
there were 4 fatalities on the bridge. Still, it is not uncommon for
an airline disaster to kill small numbers of people on the ground.

"14th Street Bridge, the Air Florida Crash, and Subway Disaster" -
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/AirF...SubwayDis.html

Quote --

The plane had taken off from nearby Washington National Airport, and due
to wing icing and pilot error, the aircraft lost altitude and crashed
into the 14th Street Bridge and the Potomac River less than a mile from
the airport. There were only 5 survivors out of 79 people on board.
The plane was a Boeing 737 two-engine jet airliner that was Air Florida
Flight 90. The aircraft descended nose-high and tail-low, and at 4:01
PM, the tail struck the deck and parapet of the Rochambeau Bridge (the
northbound span), struck seven vehicles, killed 4 motorists and injured
4 motorists, and went into the frozen river between the Rochambeau
Bridge and the express span (they are a couple hundred yards apart).
The aircraft shattered the surface ice, and broke into multiple large
pieces which quickly sank into the river. There were a total of 78
fatalities.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Quote --

The plane had taken off from nearby Washington National Airport, and due
to wing icing and pilot error, the aircraft lost altitude and crashed
into the 14th Street Bridge and the Potomac River less than a mile from
the airport.

I don't think that this is correct...I believe that the crew
didn't turn the engine anti-icing on which caused the engine
probes to ice up and deliver an improper reading of EPR to the
cockpit gauges...this caused the EPR to read high and as a result
the engines were operated at something like 70-80% power instead
of 100%. This caused a near stall and very slow (or no) climb
until they hit the bridge. I'll never understand why the
throttles weren't firewalled when they almost stalled on rotate.
(but then, hindsight.....etc
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:


Quote --

The plane had taken off from nearby Washington National Airport, and due
to wing icing and pilot error, the aircraft lost altitude and crashed
into the 14th Street Bridge and the Potomac River less than a mile from
the airport.


I don't think that this is correct...I believe that the crew
didn't turn the engine anti-icing on which caused the engine
probes to ice up and deliver an improper reading of EPR to the
cockpit gauges...this caused the EPR to read high and as a result
the engines were operated at something like 70-80% power instead
of 100%. This caused a near stall and very slow (or no) climb
until they hit the bridge. I'll never understand why the
throttles weren't firewalled when they almost stalled on rotate.
(but then, hindsight.....etc

A USAirways instructor/pilot said they were a victim of their training:
Never exceed the red line. They didn't but as you pointed out, a
slight increase in power would have let them clear the bridge.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

"khobar" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:


The danger from this airport is not only from terrorists but could come
from just an ordinary airplane accident. On January 12, 1981 a plane with 79
took off in a snowstorm (nice going boys) and crashed in the Potomac River,
killing 74.

The only fatalities were from those on the plane. How is that "danger"

Unfortunately this is not the case:

"There were 74 passengers, including 3 infants, and 5 crew members on board.
All but 5 died. The aircraft struck 7 occupied vehicles on an Interstate
highway bridge and tore away a railing, killing 4 more people before it
plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. A total of 78 persons died
in the worst accident in Washington DC history. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

However, the fact that there were other fatalities does not diminish your
point.


My own website article (!) that has been online since 1997 agrees that
there were 4 fatalities on the bridge. Still, it is not uncommon for
an airline disaster to kill small numbers of people on the ground.

Then why the hell did you make the half-assed statement that "The only
fatalities were from those on the plane"?

Rich Ahrens wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
"khobar" wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The danger from this airport is not only from terrorists but could come
from just an ordinary airplane accident. On January 12, 1981 a plane with 79
took off in a snowstorm (nice going boys) and crashed in the Potomac River,
killing 74.

The only fatalities were from those on the plane. How is that "danger"

Unfortunately this is not the case:

"There were 74 passengers, including 3 infants, and 5 crew members on board.
All but 5 died. The aircraft struck 7 occupied vehicles on an Interstate
highway bridge and tore away a railing, killing 4 more people before it
plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. A total of 78 persons died
in the worst accident in Washington DC history. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

However, the fact that there were other fatalities does not diminish your
point.

My own website article (!) that has been online since 1997 agrees that
there were 4 fatalities on the bridge. Still, it is not uncommon for
an airline disaster to kill small numbers of people on the ground.

Then why the hell did you make the half-assed statement that "The only
fatalities were from those on the plane"?

I corrected my mistake several days ago, right after Paul pointed it
out. I have such a huge website, almost 500 webpages, that I don't
immediately recall every point that is written there, and that was
written 8 years ago.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

Rich Ahrens wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

"khobar" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:


The danger from this airport is not only from terrorists but could come

from just an ordinary airplane accident. On January 12, 1981 a plane with 79

took off in a snowstorm (nice going boys) and crashed in the Potomac River,
killing 74.

The only fatalities were from those on the plane. How is that "danger"

Unfortunately this is not the case:

"There were 74 passengers, including 3 infants, and 5 crew members on board.
All but 5 died. The aircraft struck 7 occupied vehicles on an Interstate
highway bridge and tore away a railing, killing 4 more people before it
plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. A total of 78 persons died
in the worst accident in Washington DC history. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

However, the fact that there were other fatalities does not diminish your
point.

My own website article (!) that has been online since 1997 agrees that
there were 4 fatalities on the bridge. Still, it is not uncommon for
an airline disaster to kill small numbers of people on the ground.

Then why the hell did you make the half-assed statement that "The only
fatalities were from those on the plane"?


I corrected my mistake several days ago, right after Paul pointed it
out. I have such a huge website, almost 500 webpages, that I don't
immediately recall every point that is written there, and that was
written 8 years ago.

And yet you made a definitive statement as if you did...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...

And yet you made a definitive statement as if you did...

I still got those 757 missile platform pics fer yeh Rich. Or would you
prefer the chemtrail specials?

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...


And yet you made a definitive statement as if you did...


I still got those 757 missile platform pics fer yeh Rich. Or would you
prefer the chemtrail specials?

Paul Nixon

You're still a fjuckwit, Nixon.