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

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.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
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.

Do you think up such responses all by yourself? I bet you do.

Bwahahahahahahahaha...

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...

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.


Do you think up such responses all by yourself? I bet you do.

Bwahahahahahahahaha...

Paul Nixon

One has to keep it simple for simpletons like you, Nixon. Wouldn't want
to strain the few neurons you still have firing...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
khobar wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...

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.


Do you think up such responses all by yourself? I bet you do.

Bwahahahahahahahaha...

Paul Nixon

One has to keep it simple for simpletons like you, Nixon. Wouldn't want
to strain the few neurons you still have firing...

Keeping things simple doesn't appear to be a matter of choice for you, ever.

Paul Nixon

"The airport was under a "red alert," which indicates potential for
lightning and forces ground staff to remain indoors, but does not
prevent planes from landing or taking off. "

That's a quote from a news article. However, Birdstrike Bill is so
ignorant of aviation that it doesn't register.

R Polanski