Skip to main content

View Diary: Exxon's Skies: Why Is Exxon Controlling the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill? (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's a huge difference between 1,000 feet (7+ / 0-)

    and 3,000 feet, not to mention the area involved.  Here, that lower 1,000 feet are needed to provide safety for what needs to be done.

    Access is not being deprived.  Common sense is being used to provide greater safety for what needs to be done.  There are sooooo many legitimate worries about oil companies.  Making a big deal out of something that's not only innocuous, but necessary, weakens our legitimate positions.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:38:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's a huge difference between being governed (22+ / 0-)

      by the people we've elected, and being ruled by corporate entities.

      At least, to those who value such things.

      The problem is not a no-fly zone at 1,000 feet.  It's who is being allowed to declare it.

      But, if you knew or cared about the difference between democracy and plutocracy, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:43:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  knowledge is a good thing (8+ / 0-)

        Exxon has not declared a no-fly zone.  The FAA has issued a temporary flight restriction.

        The FAA recognizes the necessity to limit air traffic in a very small area around an oil spill (as with many other emergency response situations).  The FAA issues a temporary flight restriction for safety of flight reasons.  

        FAA air traffic controllers still control the airspace.  If a nonparticipating pilot violates the airspace, the nasty letter will come from the FAA.

        Someone needs to be in charge of who gets waivers to the airspace for operational reasons; that someone is the incident commander on the ground (just how it is done for forest fires etc.).  How else would the FAA know who to authorize into the restricted area without asking the guy who is coordinating the response?

        "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

        by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:25:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the newspaper article in the post disagrees (8+ / 0-)

          The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette revealed that the FAA site noted earlier today that "only relief aircraft operations under direction of Tom Suhrhoff" were allowed within the designated no fly zone.

          Suhrhoff is not an FAA employee: he works for ExxonMobil as an "Aviation Advisor" and formerly worked as a U.S. Army pilot for 24 years, according to his LinkedIn page.

          Lynn Lunsford, an FAA spokesman, told Dow Jones a no fly zone was issued because "at least one" helicopter was needed to move clean-up crews around, as well as to spot oil that can't be seen from the ground.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:28:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're not paying attention (5+ / 0-)

            It's even starting to look like yourself and others here in a panic over this are purposefully ignoring the facts.

            This is NOT a no-fly zone. It's a temporary restriction 1000 feet AGL and below.  If you keep saying it's a no-fly zone it becomes clear that you are ignoring the facts and you should basically be ignored.

            Come on, join the rest of us in reality.

            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

            by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:08:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  what you call it isn't the point (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade, mrkvica, elwior, madhaus

              the point is they need to get a move-on with this, from the article in the post:

              "This also means press is prohibited from the area, though Lunsford told Dow Jones that the FAA "is in the process of amending the restriction to allow news media aircraft into the area.""

              From the Gulf Disaster, we know that the current trend is  cut off access to control the story.

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:11:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep (3+ / 0-)

                You're refusing to pay attention.

                Press is not prohibited from the area.  Press, and everyone else who doesn't get clearance, are prohibited from flying aircraft in the area below 1000'. As far as I know you are welcome to wander in to the area on foot and to fly your aircraft at 1001' anywhere you like.

                Seriously, I refuse to try to explain things or attempt to have a rational discussion about the current situation with people like yourself who completely reject the reality of the situation and are refusing to pay attention.

                [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I quoted the FAA person from the article (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elwior, madhaus

                  so you are fed up with them, not me:

                  "This also means press is prohibited from the area, though Lunsford told Dow Jones that the FAA "is in the process of amending the restriction to allow news media aircraft into the area.""

                  That is what I copied from the article, and you are the one mistakenly taking their quote out of context to mean all the area, and not the no fly zone area, which is how the FAA person described it as well.

                  Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                  by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:33:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

                    You're going to run with this ignorance?

                    So now the FAA can restrict media from the ground as well? You do realize that FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, right? They don't have any ability to limit people on the ground. You also refuse to acknowledge that this is a limitation on aircraft 1000'AGL and below.

                    You apparently are too dense to recognize this isn't a no-fly zone, it's simply restricted access 1000' and below. I'm done with you and your conspiracies, fantasies and frankly outright delusional thinking and voluntary ignorance. You refuse to understand and that makes you just as dangerous and irresponsible as any oil executive trying to squeeze out another dollar by raping the land and lying to the people.  Good day.

                    [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

                    by rabel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you say you won't continue to argue (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      elwior

                      but then you keep doing it, and you keep arguing with yourself because I never said anything about it being on the ground, nor did the FAA person from the article I quoted.

                      When the FAA person stated, ""This also means press is prohibited from the area," I didn't say they meant the ground, nor is that their implication. It is yours alone.

                      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                      by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:01:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Please get a clue. When the FAA referred (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Larsstephens, Otteray Scribe

                        to "this area", they're talking the area IN THE AIR LESS THAN 1000 FEET.

                        This kind of absolutely silly - no, make that stupid - chicken little type crap is the weakest part of the progressive movement.  Too many people are similar to the redstaters, and won't let go of their conspiracy or plutocracy theories even when the facts slap them in the face.  How ridiculous a  few of you are being.  And solely because you couldn't accept sensible explanations in the beginning, but just kept digging your hole deeper and deeper and now when faced with how silly you've been, can not face admitting it.  

                        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                        by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:12:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  rAmen!!! (0+ / 0-)

                          "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans!!. . Willkommen im Vierten Reich! Sie haben keine Bedeutung mehr.

                          by Bluefin on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:48:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  no it doesn't (4+ / 0-)

            Tom Suhrhoff did not declare a no-fly zone.  The FAA issued a temporary flight restriction.  Tom Suhrhoff is the guy who the FAA has designated to approve waivers into the restricted area, which is not the same as controlling the airspace.  Tom Suhrhoff has no enforcement powers.  He is not sitting at a radar scope issuing air traffic clearances.

            "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

            by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:13:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  only Exxon's people are allowed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior

              from the article:

              "FAA site noted earlier today that "only relief aircraft operations under direction of Tom Suhrhoff" were allowed within the designated no fly zone.

              Suhrhoff is not an FAA emploee"

              So while that dude isn't directing the traffic, only people he designates as his traffic get in.

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:24:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  situation normal (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mad Season, gustynpip, Otteray Scribe

                This is how TFRs work.  Whether it's for an air show, a forest fire, or an oil spill.  Or gas plumes, or blasting operations, or ...

                Is this the first you've heard of TFRs?  Are you going to get this up in arms about all TFRs?  The FAA has already issued six new ones just today in CA, AZ, MN, and TX.  Three of them with corporate contacts for flight waivers:

                KEETAC LARRY SCHMELZER TELEPHONE 218-778-8739 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. MINNEAPOLIS ZMP ARTCC TELEPHONE 651-463-5580 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.
                NORTH SHORE MINING COMPANY COMMUNICATION, TELEPHONE 218-827-2018, OR SECURITY TELEPHONE 218-827-2021, IS IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. MINNEAPOLIS ARTCC ZMP /651-463-5580, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.
                FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSIONS TELEPHONE 713-303-4315 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. HOUSTON /ZHU ARTCC TELEPHONE 281-230-5560 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.

                "They let 'em vote, smoke, and drive -- even put 'em in pants! So what do you get? A -- a Democrat for President!" ~ Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

                by craiger on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:37:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Stupid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gustynpip, elwior

        This argument is stupid.  The FAA declared the Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) at the request of Exxon.  It was the FAA who had the authority to make this decision not Exxon.  If Exxon alone decided to declare the TFR there'd be no repercussions to anyone who violated it.  This is no different than a power line falling down and the private power industry getting approval from the local police to close a road down while they fix it.  During the time it takes to fix that power line it's the private power company dictating when the road should be closed, but it's ultimately the decision of the local police to keep it closed.

        Here's something to blow your mind with:  The private business of Disneyland has had a permanent flight restriction over it since 9/11.  Outraged?

        •  the issue is it is a media concern, unlike disney (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          so one of these things is not like the other.

          Which they've now lifted it, deciding that they can manage to coordinate the one helicopter (which is the number they have according to the article), and potential media helicopters.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Of course. Because unless someone believes (0+ / 0-)

        and knows exactly what you believe and know, nothing more and nothing less, she can not possibly know or care about the difference between democracy and plutocracy.

        Do you have any idea how totally foolish you sound?  It's when people spouting garbage like this that they lose credibility for anything else they have to say.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:08:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site