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

  •  That is nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mad Season, Larsstephens

    What I am seeing is a few people who tried/are trying to educate the less informed (including myself) exactly what a NOTAM is and how it is a common occurrence in every day airspace life.  I don't think it is hard to understand.  I understood it (and I am not necessarily the brightest bulb in the box).  And that doesn't mean that I don't think that Exxon has undue influence over legislation or that they will lie, cheat and spin away the whole time this is occurring.  But this airspace issue is a red herring.

    I think mostly it is due to the lack of familiarity with the medium.  You and others would not likely think twice about your local electric company blocking a road when power lines are down and being removed/repaired etc.  In that scenario you are prevented from getting close - perhaps you are kept far enough away that you can't even see anything or know exactly what they are doing.  But you are more familiar with that so you can accept and understand it.  And because you do so that doesn't automatically make you a corporate apologist for the power company.

    "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

    by newfie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:18:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  this is from the article (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheOrchid, elwior, Bisbonian

      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...

      ...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...

      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."

      So because of one helicopter the press is prohibited. Let's not pretend this didn't happen during the Gulf disaster. Let's not pretend this is the same as your analogies. It just isn't.

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

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

      [ Parent ]

      •  But he is responsible (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mad Season, Larsstephens

        for the aircraft operations that are working on the relief.  So I believe you are misreading the description of allowed aircraft (as did I initially) to be equated to a turnover of power and control.  But it really is describing an exception to the limitation of air traffic.

        And so they are amending it.  Ok.  But we won;t interpret that as being a conspiracy of news media AND Exxon to prevent common citizens from seeing what is going on.  

        But by all means, please continue to insist that this is an issue if you wish.  

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:39:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I quoted the FAA from the article (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          it was one helicopter.

          Eitherway, they opened it up to media now. I guess they figured out how to coordinate more than one helicopter.

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

          by greenbastard on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            the statement was "at least one" which could mean one it could mean five.  What it probably does mean is that the request by Exxon stated that their request was based on a need for at least one helicopter operating.  But yes, it could have been one helicopter and apparently, that is a minimum threshold for the FAA to grant this small restriction in airspace (remembering that 1000 feet is not very much in terms of bird's eye viewage).

            I don't think that it had anything to do with figuring anything out .  My guess (and it is a guess) is that at least one media concern requested a modification.  (Don't worry it could have been more than one).  And it was granted (once again my guessing) because it was not an unreasonable request.  And (sorry more guessing) it would say it is more likely that is all to do with what was originally requested - which the FAA deemed reasonable and granted - restrict a minimal airspace, put out a notice for all airman to avoid due to hazzard/operational area and that is all they did.

            "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

            by newfie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site