Almost everyone had Wi-Fi in the house due to its convenience. However, there have been some safety concerns and the conclusion it that Wi-Fi can be detrimental to the overall health, especially in children. So, Wi-Fi has a negative effect on various things, from brain health to sleep quality.
Potential Dangers of Wi-Fi
Damages Childhood Development
The non-thermal radio frequency radiation from Wi-Fi can disrupt normal cellular development, especially fetal development. This radiation affects growing tissues, such as in children and youth. Consequently, they would be more susceptible than average to the described effects and are at greater risk of developmental issues.
Contributes to the Development of Insomnia
Wi-Fi has also a great effect on sleep. If you feel like you cannot fall asleep, have an irregular sleeping pattern, it may be due to the low-frequency modulation from cell phones and Wi-Fi. People who are exposed to electromagnetic radiation have a significantly more difficult time falling asleep. And we all know that sleep deprivation can be harmful to the health.
Agitates Brain Function
Wi-Fi affects the concentration and the brain function. So, the brain activity is reduced, and as a result, you may experience trouble concentrating or have memory loss.
Neutralizes Sperm
Wi-Fi is another reason which threats man’s virility. Hence, exposure to Wi-Fi frequencies reduce sperm movement and cause DNA fragmentation. Moreover, it may impact fertility or increase the risk of abnormal pregnancy.
Causes Cardiac Stress
Many people experience a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies, including increased heart rate. Therefore, Wi-Fi increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases.
Increases the Risk of Cancer
The exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development.
Wi-Fi Radiation – How To Protect Yourself
Fortunately, there are ways you can protect yourself from the dangers, including:
Avoid placing a wireless router in your kitchen or bedroom.
Do not keep the phone in your pocket.
Use wired phones when at home, to reduce electromagnetic radiation.
If you’re pregnant, don’t keep the phone close to the belly.
Make sure you keep your phone at the other end of the room, or on the seat of the car.
Use texting more than talking.
Do not use wireless baby monitors, as they all operate on microwave frequency.
Disconnect all Wi-Fi devices before going to sleep.
How much radiation are you actually getting?
The effect of radiation is determined on the proximity of the transmitting device to the user. The further away, the less power is received, and this is usually in the “inverse proportion” rule. This means that at a given power output, if you are twice the distance from the source you will receive 1/4 of the radiation power; and if you are 4 times the distance away from the source, 1/16th of the radiation will be received, and so on.
3G devices (in the U.S.A.) don’t really have a set frequency, but rather will operate at various levels ranging from about 800 MHz to 2.4 GHz (more if you’re using Bluetooth or 4G phones).
WiFi signals, on the other hand, share the same general frequency as microwave ovens at right around 2.4 GHz.
But because of how we use these signals, it becomes a battle of distance and duration. Mobile phones are used right next to our skin for short bursts of time, while routers or laptops generally sit far away from us for extremely prolonged periods of time. The UK’s Health Protection Agency noted in 2007 that:
Sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year results in receiving the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call.
But the thing to learn from this is that you probably don’t have to worry too much about this kind of radiation having any seriously dangerous long-term (cancerous) effects on you (provided you’re not walking around with wireless devices taped to every inch of your skin). That’s not to say long term exposure to low-level radiation might not have other adverse health effects, but it’s hugely unlikely to be cancer. Any radiation below ultraviolet (radio, microwave, infrared, and visible light) is non-ionizing and won’t penetrate bone, meaning it can’t break down atoms (and consequently DNA, leading to cancer) and it can’t get to your brain. The “do power lines/microwaves/mobile phones/next radiation-emitting-device-that-most-people-don’t-fully-understand give you cancer?” studies are all, as they’ll always be, resoundingly inconclusive.
Even the newest WHO review of cell phones (described by CNN with a typically alarmist title) somehow makes the claim that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” despite the fact that “The WHO work group did not find that there was sufficient evidence linking cancer and environmental or occupational exposures with microwave energy,” implying that the possible carcinogens must come from the phones themselves, and not the radiation.
Looking at the picture above, it is somewhat alarmist as none of those devices would be normally found in a child or baby’s bedroom!
At 15:56 on 28/10/2017 emergency services were called to the small rural town of John’s River, near Port Macquarie NSW, following a report of an aircraft crash just north of the town. The tail of the aircraft could be seen from the dual-lane highway nearby.
Photo by: George Canciani
Emergency services responded urgently to the scene. Shortly after their arrival it was confirmed that VH-JMW built in 1980, a twin engined, Cessna T310R (c/n 310R1802) had crashed, killing the two occupants on board. There was no fire, however fuel leaking from ruptured fuel tanks was foamed by attending fire units.
VH-JMW (owned by Burley Aircraft) had departed from Toowoomba (YTWB) in Queensland at 13:30, on a published flight plan to Taree (YTRE), NSW, but in fact it’s destination was to be a private airstrip at John’s River, a trip that should take 1 hour 25 minutes.
Photo by: Port Macquarie News
The trip was uneventful with a cruise altitude of 9,400 feet. At 15:51, on descending through 3,000 feet, the aircraft commenced a rapid descent of 1,200 to 1,500 fpm prior to crashing at 15:56. The flight plan supplied by FlightRadar24can be seen below.
The cause of the incident remains uncertain and officers from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident. This page will be updated as detail is reported. A preliminary investigation report is expected to be released in about 30 days but a final report may take up to a year.
ATSB Report
SB is investigating an aircraft accident involving a Cessna 310R aircraft, registered VH-JMW, that occurred about 40 km SSW of Port Macquarie, NSW on 28 October 2017.
The aircraft collided with terrain, fatally injuring the two persons on board.
The ATSB deployed a team of four investigators to the accident site with expertise that includes aircraft operations, engineering and maintenance.
While on site, the team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering any recorded data, and interviewing any witnesses.
The ATSB will release a preliminary investigation report in approximately 30 days. A final report into the accident may take approximately 12 months to complete.
However, should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.
They are mainly young men and live in southern states, according to a paper, published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Researchers say these young men tend to have grown up in gun-owning households, are politically conservative (Republican) and own more than one type of firearm. Some of these homes own up to seven different types of weapon.
It comes less than three weeks since gunman killed 56 people and injured more than 500 others in an attack at a Las Vegas music festival.
The massacre was the deadliest in the history of the US, which has the highest rate of murder or manslaughter by firearm in the developed world.
The study, compiled by researchers from the University of Washington School of Public Health, the University of Colorado, the Harvard School of Public Health, and North-eastern University, looked at the handgun-carrying behaviour of 1,444 gun owners using data from a 2015 national survey.
Two-thirds of them said they carried their handguns concealed, while 10 percent did so in an open manner.
The research is the first in more than 20 years to scrutinise how and in what manner US adults carry loaded handguns.
Researchers said state laws on handgun carrying have eased since the 1980s and that some respondents to the survey admitted openly carrying a firearm even in regions where it was illegal.
Spend time at a busy airport and you’ll likely see an aircraft go-around. Find out why airplanes go around and how the maneuver enhances safety.
Go-Around Terminology
Go-Around terminology can be confusing. There are a few terms different terms used (and misused), so let’s clear things up!
Go-Around
Go-around is the general term used when the decision is made to discontinue a landing. A go-around can be accomplished anywhere along the final approach course and even after the aircraft touches down on the runway.
After initiating a go-around, the crew will begin to climb the aircraft, following instructions of air traffic control. They may fly a published missed approach procedure (a charted route) that will guide them safely away from terrain and other air traffic.
“Go-around” is also the standard international terminology used for communication between pilots and controllers. Example: “Aerosavvy 101, zombies roaming the runway. Go-around.”
Why are they called Go-Arounds?
Aircraft at smaller airfields typically fly a rectangular traffic pattern (or circuit) around the runway in preparation for landing. If the pilot decides not to land, the aircraft climbs and rejoins the pattern to go around the circuit and make another approach. Although airliners rarely fly a traditional traffic pattern, the maneuver is still called a go-around.
Rejected or Balked (Baulked) Landing
A rejected landing is a go-around that begins at very low altitude after the pilot has made the decision to land.
In some cases, an aircraft will actually touch down on the runway during a rejected landing. There are situations where getting the aircraft back into the air is safer than completing the landing.
The terms rejected landing and balked (baulked in the UK) landing are essentially interchangeable. Usage and precise definitions vary by region. Aviation regulators (FAA, EASA, etc) and aircraft manufacturers use the term “balked landing” when discussing aircraft performance requirements during low altitude (or after touch down) go-arounds.
Other Go-Around Terminology
Navy aircraft use different terms for go-arounds and balked landings.
Wave Off – When the Landing Signal Officer orders a pilot not to land on the aircraft carrier, it’s called a wave off. Similar to when an air traffic controller orders an aircraft to go-around.
Bolter – A carrier landing attempt in which the tailhook fails to engage an arresting wire, requiring a go-around. This is similar to a balked landing.
Until a few years ago, U.K. Royal Air Force controllers would order a pilot to “Overshoot” when a go-around was necessary. A few pilots tell me that “overshoot” is occasionally heard in Canada. “Go-Around” is now the standard international phraseology.
Canadian air traffic controllers will sometimes say: “Pull up and go-around” when ordering an aircraft to go-around. I suspect the “pull up” part is an attempt to get the pilots moving in the right direction while they think about the go-around. 🙂
Here’s an interesting phraseology variant from the UK. When ordering a flight to go-around, controllers state: “AeroSavvy 101, go-around, I say again, go-around. Acknowledge.” The controllers want to make certain the pilots confirm and execute the maneuver.
Missed Approach
The term missed approach is often incorrectly used to describe a go-around. The terms are not interchangeable. A missed approach is a published instrument procedure that begins after the go-around is initiated.
When pilots fly an instrument approach to a runway, they follow a detailed route displayed on an approach chart. If the pilots are unable to land when reaching the runway, they perform a go-around. After initiating the go-around, the approach chart has a Missed Approach Procedure that guides the pilots safely away from the runway, terrain, and other air traffic.
If a crew needs to abandon an instrument approach, they will alert the controller: “Metropolis Tower, Aerosavvy 101 is going-around.” Tower will then provide guidance. They might give the crew a specific heading and altitude, or say “AeroSavvy 101, fly the published missed approach.” The latter instructs the crew to follow the published missed approach procedure on the chart.
The image below shows an approach chart for Singapore’s runway 20C. The image on the right is the same procedure displayed on a 767 navigation screen. The Missed Approach Procedure (MAP) is highlighted in yellow.
Singapore runway 20C approach chart and the same approach on the aircraft navigation screen. The missed approach procedure is highlighted in yellow. Click for larger image.
To summarize: When pilots on an instrument approach are unable to land, they will first initiate a go-around, then fly a published missed approach procedure or follow the controller’s instructions.
A Go-Around Is Not an Emergency
When pilots go-around, they are avoiding a potentially hazardous situation. Flight crews are encouraged to go-around any time they are uncomfortable with an approach or landing. There are no penalties or paperwork involved when a pilot chooses to discontinue an approach.
When in doubt, Go-Around!
Excellent guidance for every pilot, regardless of experience level and equipment.
Why Do Pilots Go-Around?
There are several reasons why a pilot or air traffic controller may want an aircraft to go-around.
Unstable approach – Most airlines require aircraft to be stabilized by 1000 feet (about 3 miles from the runway). A stabilized approach means the aircraft is at final approach speed and fully configured with landing gear and flaps extended. Studies have shown that unstable approaches are a causal factor in many landing accidents. If the aircraft isn’t stable by 1000 feet, a go-around is usually required.
Spacing/Separation – Air traffic controllers try to keep landing aircraft separated by 3-5 miles. This gives an aircraft enough time to land and exit the runway before the next aircraft lands. If spacing becomes too close, the tower controller can order a flight crew to go-around.
Stuff on the Runway – Ground vehicles, aircraft, trash, and even animals on a runway will cause pilots to go-around.
Aircraft Mechanical Problem – Although rare, a flight crew might discover a mechanical problem on final approach (perhaps a flap or landing gear issue). Going around will give the pilots time to troubleshoot the problem so they can return for a safe landing.
Weather Below Minimums – Instrument approaches often specify a decision altitude where the flight crew must be able to see the runway to land. If the pilots are unable to see the runway when the aircraft reaches decision altitude, a go-around is required.
Ugly, Nasty Weather – Gusty winds or turbulence can make landing a real challenge. Wind shear (sudden change in wind speed or direction) or other severe weather can cause a flight crew to initiate a go-around. Pilots use on-board weather radar and wind shear detection equipment to aid in making the land or go-around decision. Here is a video demonstrating predictive wind shear warning technology on a Boeing 767. Pilots test this equipment daily.
How Do Pilots Go-Around?
The go-around is a safe and smooth maneuver that airline pilots practice in the simulator. A go-around early in the approach phase will often go unnoticed by passengers.
Specific go-around procedures vary by airline and aircraft type. Different planes have different buttons, procedures, and terminology. The following is a generic go-around procedure for an AeroSavvy Airlines Boeing 767 (flown by our best crew).
The go-around begins 100 miles from the airport.
About 100 miles from the destination, a flight crew will do an approach briefing. They spend a few minutes reviewing airport-specific charts and procedures necessary for landing. Arrival routing, updated weather, runway conditions, and taxi routes are discussed.
The crew also reviews the go-around and missed approach procedure for the expected runway. We always plan for a go-around.
Let’s get out of here!
We’re on final approach and Metropolis Tower has cleared us to land. The runway lights are in sight!
As we descend below 200 feet, we hear our call sign on the radio:
“AeroSavvy 101, Metropolis Tower. Aircraft on the runway. Go-around. Fly the published missed approach.”
The crew responds: “Metropolis Tower, AeroSavvy 101 going around. Flying the published missed.”
Go-Around Procedure
A well-rehearsed, scripted procedure now takes place on the flight deck. The script is spoken out loud as the crew performs the actions.
PF=Pilot-Flying
PM=Pilot-Monitoring
🛫 PF: “Go-Around Thrust” The pilot-flying presses one of the go-around switches on the thrust levers. This signals the autothrottles to advance to go-around thrust and places the flight director in go-around mode to provide pitch guidance for the climb. The pilot-monitoring confirms the thrust levers advance to go-around power.
The pilot-flying (or autopilot) begins to pitch the aircraft up to begin the climb.
🛫 PF: “Flaps 20” Pilot-monitoring selects flaps 20. This retracts the flaps from the landing position to the go-around position.
🛫 PM: “Positive Rate” Pilot-monitoring confirms the aircraft is climbing and says “Positive Rate.”
🛫 PF: “Gear Up” Pilot-monitoring positions the gear handle up to raise the landing gear.
At 400 feet above ground, the pilot-flying calls: “LNAV” (pronounced el-nav). Pilot-monitoring activates the flight director system’s Lateral Navigation (LNAV) mode. This provides the pilot-flying (or autopilot) guidance to fly the programmed missed approach procedure.
At 1000 feet above ground, the pilot-flying accelerates the aircraft and calls for the flaps to be retracted.
That’s it! The crew will continue to fly the published missed approach procedure until the air traffic controller decides how to merge the aircraft back into arriving traffic. In most cases, controllers will immediately issue heading and altitude instructions.
This fun dance happens a few times every day at busy airports all over the world.
Here’s a 2-minute video demonstrating what a go-around looks like on a Boeing 757 & 767 Electronic Attitude Direction Indicator (EADI):
What does “TO/GA” mean?
Many high performance aircraft have a switch and/or thrust lever position labeled “TO/GA.” This odd assortment of letters is an acronym for TakeOff/Go-Around (pronounced “toga,” like the ancient Roman garment).
The exact function of the TO/GA switch varies on different aircraft models. In general, the dual-function TO/GA switch signals the autothrottles and flight director to provide takeoff thrust and guidance when on the runway, or go-around thrust and guidance when on an approach.
TO/GA PARTY!
Go-Around Switches and Thrust Lever Detents
Here’s an assortment of Go-Around and TO/GA buttons. Different aircraft manufacturers have different philosophies about the best way to trigger a go-around. Boeing, Embraer, Gulfstream, and a few others prefer a button or switch. Newer Airbus aircraft have a thrust lever detent (position) that triggers the go-around mode. Pilots are usually trained and assigned to one aircraft, so they don’t have to worry about getting confused. Although I fly both the Boeing 757 and 767, they have identical cockpits so the procedure and button positions are the same.
<
>
Boeing 737 MAX TO/GA Button
Go-Around From the Passenger Seat
The go-around is easy for the people in back. Many passengers don’t even realize they’ve done one! Here’s what to expect if your flight crew needs to perform a go-around:
Approaching the airport for landing, passengers usually hear a flight attendant chime (ding-ding) followed by an announcement to fasten seat belts and assure tray tables are in the upright position. If all goes well, the aircraft will land in the next 5-10 minutes.
If the flight crew needs to go-around, they won’t have time to tell the passengers (they’ll be quite busy). The first indication the aircraft is going-around is the sound of the engines increasing thrust. The aircraft will pitch up slightly and begin a shallow climb, followed by the sound of the gear being retracted. The crew will then retract some or all of the flaps.
The plane will make a few turns then fly 5-10 miles downwind before lining up with the runway for another approach. The flaps and landing gear will be extended back to landing configuration.
A go-around will add 15-30 minutes to the flight, depending on airport traffic. Think of it as a free sight-seeing excursion, courtesy of your airline!
Ken Hoke has been flying for over 30 years. He’s currently a Boeing 757 & 767 captain flying international routes for a package express airline. In his spare time, he writes AeroSavvy.com. Follow Ken on Twitter, Facebook,Instagram and YouTube.
I noticed this proposal on Facebook (for what that’s worth!). It takes the form of a change.org petition by Cody Orlando to be presented to the federal government. I don’t support concealed firearm possession or handgun possession in any form, but I’m interested to know the thoughts of others.
This will be a tough sell as most people have never handled a pistol, don’t understand the safety features, and have been brainwashed by the media and politicians for decades – creating a society that has an irrational fear of firearms. Jeff Cooper coined the term ‘Hoplophobia’ back in 1962, describing it as a “mental disturbance characterised by irrational aversion to weapons”.
I want you to put aside your irrational fear of firearms for a moment while I present you with some facts:
It is not possible to ban guns from a society
Violent crime in Australia is up and comparable in many ways to the United States. The media and our politicians love to hide this fact from you. In Australia, a woman is three times more likely to be raped than in America.
You might say you don’t want an American gun culture. I don’t either and I’m not proposing that. I don’t support the idea of self-regulation and the private sale of firearms and ammunition to anybody and everybody. Background checks, licensing and training are essential for anyone who wishes to use a firearm in Australia.
Because Americans have guns they are more likely to shoot each other. You will often see statistics of gun deaths in America compared with other countries claiming this is the case. What they fail to mention is that most of those deaths are attributed to suicide and because firearms are so readily available, they are the tool of choice for suicide in the US. Suicide is just as concerning in Australia, it’s just that we choose instead to jump at the gap or gas ourselves in the garage. The population of America is 14 times greater than that of Australia, so a per capita comparison is more like 715 America / 60 Australia deaths by firearms. I have included a graph below that shows how much more likely you are to die by other means in the US.
In the last two decades, the UK has introduced the most restrictive gun laws in the developed world, banning many types of firearms. During this time crime has skyrocketed and criminals are the only ones with guns.
As a law abiding Australian citizen who goes to work and pays his taxes, don’t you feel the Government should be doing more to protect you from violent criminals? I’m sure they believe they are doing the best they can, but the problem is their strategy is wrong. Criminals get too much of a free ride these days. Violent offenders brazenly rob, rape and beat people with little fear that a good citizen will step in to put a stop to the attack.
Police cannot be everywhere to protect everyone. There is about one police officer per 500 citizens and each officer works 40 hours during a 24/7, 168 hour week, reducing the ratio to 1:2100. Then you need to factor in how much time they actually spend on the beat, rather than doing paperwork, time in court etc.
Policing is not a proactive business with respect to violent crime. It’s impossible to tell when and where a rapist might attack and potentially give you a nasty disease. There’s not much you can do about that disease after the fact either. You can’t sue AIDS or Hepatitis C in a court of law.
Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that you or your daughter carry a concealed weapon to protect yourselves, but what I am proposing is that those good citizens who are trained and licensed to use pistols should be legally allowed to carry in public in their own personal time.
Why can’t an off-duty police officer choose to carry a pistol when he is doing his grocery shopping, or an armed security guard or sporting pistol shooter for that matter? Approximately 0.5% of Australians are trained and licensed to use pistols. How brazen would a criminal be knowing that 1 in 200 citizens would be only too happy to step in and assist another good citizen like yourself in distress?
You have a choice. You can continue to believe the media, political spin, lies and fear-mongering, or you can choose to believe that authorities recognise they cannot control criminals, so they control the law abiding. Lobby your government to allow licensed people to carry and remind them Article 3 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
Justine Damond spent her last moments trying to help a stranger.
At 11:27 p.m. Saturday, Ms. Damond called police to report a possible sexual assault, according to a 911 transcript obtained by the Star Tribune Wednesday, later published by the city of Minneapolis.
“I’m not sure if she’s having sex or being raped,” Damond told the operator. After giving her address in the quiet Fulton neighborhood, Damond continued: “I think she just yelled out ‘help,’ but it’s difficult the sound has been going on for a while, but I think, I don’t think she’s enjoying it.”
“OK,” said the operator, “I’ve already got an officer on the way.”
Soon afterward, one of those officers, Mohamed Noor, fired his gun from inside a patrol vehicle and killed Damond.
The death of Ms Damond, 40, sparked international controversy, including in her native Australia, where the prime minister called it a “shocking” and “inexplicable” killing and demanded answers. As the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigates, details have been scarce, and the 911 call further explains why the officers were there in the first place. The city also released police and incident reports Wednesday, though they offer limited public details while the shooting is still being investigated.
“I think the BCA is also stymied by a lack of information,” said Gov. Mark Dayton Wednesday in his first public remarks on the case. “I think everybody wants answers.”
The 911 transcript shows that about eight minutes after making her first call, Damond called police again to make sure they took down her address correctly. She repeated the report of hearing a woman screaming, and the operator assured her the officers were en route.
“Thank you,” said Damond.
Officer Matthew Harrity, who was driving, and Noor, in the front passenger seat, arrived at the scene. They drove south through the alley between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S., toward W. 51st Street, with the squad (car) lights turned off. As they reached the street, “Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad (car),” according to the preliminary BCA investigation.
911 call transcript
Damond approached the driver’s side window of the squad car “immediately afterward,” according to the statement. Noor shot from the passenger seat, across his partner and through the window, striking Damond in the abdomen. She died at the scene 20 minutes later.
Officers canvassed the area that night, but did not locate any evidence of a sexual assault, said Minneapolis Police Assistant Chief Medaria Arradondo, who has served as the face of the department since the shooting. Chief Janeé Harteau remains out of public view on what a spokesperson called a “personal, pre-scheduled” trip out of state, saying she was expected to return Wednesday. A message left asking if she was back in Minneapolis was not returned.
A State Police spokesman would not clarify what the noise Harrity heard may have been, but Harrity’s attorney hinted that the officers may have believed they were driving into an “ambush.” The attorney, Fred Bruno, declined to discuss the investigation, but said, “it’s certainly reasonable to assume that any police officer would be concerned about a possible ambush under these circumstances,” referencing the case of New York City Police officer Miosotis Familia, 48, who was killed July 5 when she was shot in the head while sitting in her mobile command vehicle in the Bronx.
Noor has refused to be interviewed by BCA agents, so his side of the story is still unknown. Noor’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, did not respond to a request for comment.
After Noor shot Damond, the officers exited the car and started performing CPR until medical responders arrived. Damond was pronounced dead at the scene.
The officers were wearing body cameras, but they did not turn them on until after the shooting, according to the BCA. Investigators say they are not aware of any video or audio of the shooting.
Bruno would not specify what Harrity told BCA investigators beyond what was made public.
Dayton reserving judgement
Governor Dayton called the death a “horrible” tragedy, but said he had no additional information to draw conclusions about what happened.
He said he left a message expressing condolences to Damond’s fiancé, Don Damond, and another message with the Australian consulate in Chicago offering any aid he could. Justine Damond, a spiritual healer from Sydney, was scheduled to marry Don Damond in August.
Dayton said he would not comment on Noor refusing to be interviewed by police because Noor has a constitutional right to remain silent.
“There’s a paucity of information,” he said. “To the best of my knowledge, there are only two living eyewitnesses. One, who spoke yesterday to BCA officials for about four hours, and the other, who has declined to be interviewed, and he’s obviously the key person in this investigation.”
Dayton said the Legislature should “definitely review” the policies on body cameras, echoing remarks from Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman earlier this week that the officers “didn’t have to turn them on, but [they] should have turned them on.”
Freeman’s office has been briefed on the case, but a spokesman declined to comment Wednesday about what was revealed. Freeman said he will decide whether to charge Noor with the shooting, rather than convene a grand jury.
House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, said any type of violent incident between police and citizens is “incredibly unfortunate,” but said he’d also reserve judgement until more information is released.
Daudt said he expects the Legislature to take up discussions around police body cameras in the future. But he said earlier talks have turned controversial, as lawmakers seek to balance public safety needs with the privacy rights of people who are filmed.
The speaker voiced his support for law enforcement officers across the state, and urged Minnesotans to do the same. “This isn’t easy when it happens for folks in uniform,” he said. “I encourage people to show support.”
Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune – Staff writers Brandon Stahl and Hannah Covington.
Editorial and Opinion
This shooting of a white 40 year old Australian national, in a safe neighbourhood in Minneapolis by a black Muslim officer has a distinct stink about it! Mayor Betsy states that people cannot compound that tragedy by turning to “racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.” It is unfortunate but all these factors exist until proven otherwise.
The Minneapolis police chief Janeé Harteau remains out of public view on what a police spokesperson called a “personal, pre-scheduled” trip out of state. With an incident as big as this which has the potential to blow her department apart, and become a major international incident, she should have returned immediately to provide executive oversight – but no!
What has Officer Noor got to hide. He refuses to be interviewed by BCA officers. Yes, it is his right to remain silent, but as a serving police officer involved in a “gun on none” shooting, he has an absolute obligation to tell his side of the story. Matthew Harrity has given his statement of events BCA officers, but Noor refuses to do so.
Reports state that Officer Noor had already drawn his weapon and had it on his lap, and when Ms Damond approached the driver’s side window in her pyjamas, Officer Noor raised and discharged his weapon across the front and in the face of Officer Harrity, through a closed window striking and killing Ms Damond. Why was this weapon drawn already? Deadly force is used when an officer is in grave and imminent danger! Noor was ready to shoot irrespective of the situation found!
What did Noor think he was shooting at? How had he appropriately assessed the scene, and any possible threat to his and his partner’s safety?
Why were the officers body cameras turned off? County Attorney Mike Freeman stated that officers “didn’t have to turn them on.” If that is the case, then why are they issued? The officers’ failure to turn on their cameras violates Minneapolis police policy, which has been in place for body cameras since at least 2016. In particular, policy 4-223 says that officers should manually activate their cameras “prior to any use of force. If a [body-worn camera] is not activated prior to a use of force, it shall be activated as soon as it is safe to do so.” It also says that officers should turn on their cameras during “any contact involving criminal activity,” “any contact that is, or becomes adversarial,” and “any citizen contact.” All of these rules indicate that the cameras should have been rolling before police shot Damond. However, it’s one thing to have these rules and another to get officers to actually follow them.
Why was the squad cars dash camera turned of? Why are they fixed to the squad cars if they are not used.
Why do American police have this shoot first, ask questions later mentality? US police kill more in days than other countries police do in years.” Between 1992 and 2011, Australian police shot and killed 94 people. In 2015, US police shot and killed 97 people in March alone!
Constitutionally, US police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defence-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others. Of course, this leads to the unarmed and possibly innocent suspect running away from the vicinity of a possible crime scene, being shot dead with officers using lethal force on limited and/or erroneous information!
The suggestion by officers that they feared they were being ambushed is ludicrous! This dis-information is being spread in attempt to muddy the investigation and to taint the judgement by police and public alike. Where did this information come from? A cynic may suggest from the Minneapolis PD union itself, in attempt to create doubt in favour of it’s members?
Will Noor face prosecution for his actions? Probably not! Even though the victim was white, female, unarmed and the 911 informant, who was shot by a black officer with a limited and erroneous scope of the scene. On the surface of this incident, this seems to be an unlawful shooting, Noor is unlikely to face court. Police are very rarely prosecuted for shootings — because the law allows them wide latitude to use force on the job. It’s because the investigation of the incident often falls onto the same police department the officer is from, which creates major conflicts of interest, and breeds corrupt investigative practices. These police are not motivated to prosecute their own, a position which appears to be supported by the city officials and the judiciary of that location. At other times the only available evidence comes from eyewitnesses, who are not seen to be as trustworthy in the public eye as a police officer.
The vulnerable will continue to suffer and the guilty will walk away.
On 21 February 2017, the pilot of a Beechcraft King Air B200, registered VH-ZCR, was conducting a flight from Essendon Airport, Victoria to King Island, Tasmania. On board were the pilot and four passengers. The weather was fine with a recorded wind speed of 5 kt (9 km/h) from the north‑north‑west and a temperature of 12 °C.
Witnesses familiar with the aircraft type reported that the take-off roll along runway 17[1] was longer than normal. After becoming airborne, the aircraft was observed to yaw[2] left. The aircraft performed a shallow climbing left turn while maintaining a relatively level pitch[3] and roll[4] attitude. Airservices Australia Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data[5] indicated the aircraft reached a maximum height of approximately 160 ft above ground level while tracking in an arc to the left of the runway centreline (Figure 1). The aircraft subsequently collided with a building in the Essendon Airport retail precinct.
The pilot and passengers were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed. Additionally, a number of people on the ground received minor injuries.
Figure 1: Aircraft track from Airservices Australia ADS-B data. All heights above ground level
Source: Google earth, modified by the ATSB
Wreckage and impact information
The aircraft collided with the roof of the building and associated concrete parapet before coming to rest in the building’s rear car park (Figures 2 and 3). Examination of the significantly fire- and impact‑damaged wreckage determined that, at impact the:
aircraft was configured with 10° of flap
landing gear was in the extended and locked position.
Examination of the building roof showed evidence of propeller slash marks and nose and main gear tyre marks (Figure 3). Those marks were consistent with the aircraft having significant left yaw and a slight left roll at initial impact.
Figure 2: Accident site overview
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB
On-site examination of the wreckage did not identify any pre-existing faults with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident.
The left and right engines separated from their mounts during the impact sequence. Both engines had varying degrees of fire and impact damage. The engines were removed from the accident site to a secure facility where they were disassembled and inspected by the ATSB with assistance from the engine manufacturer. That examination found that the cores of both engines were rotating and that there was no evidence of pre-impact failure of either engine’s internal components. However, a number of engine components were retained for further examination and testing.
The propellers separated from the engines during the impact sequence. Both propellers exhibited evidence of rotation and have been retained by the ATSB for detailed examination. The ATSB also retained several airframe components, documents and electronic devices for further examination.
Figure 3: Accident site building roof overview
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB
Recorded information
Cockpit voice recorder
A Fairchild model A100S cockpit voice recorder (CVR), part number S100-0080-00 and serial number 01211, was fitted to the aircraft. This model of recorder uses solid-state memory to record cockpit audio and has a recording duration of 30 minutes. CVRs are designed on an ‘endless loop’ principle, where the oldest audio is continuously overwritten by the most recent audio. Apart from pilot speech and radio transmissions, CVRs can record control movements (for example flap and gear levers), switch activations, aural warnings and background sounds such as propeller and engine noise.
The aircraft’s fire‑damaged CVR was recovered from the accident site and transported to the ATSB’s technical facility in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory on 23 February 2017 for examination and download (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Comparison of an undamaged Fairchild model A100S CVR (top) with the CVR from VH-ZCR (bottom)
The CVR from VH-ZCR was disassembled and the memory board was removed from inside the crash-protected memory module. The memory board was undamaged (Figure 5).
The CVR was successfully downloaded however, no audio from the accident flight was recorded. All the recovered audio was from a previous flight on 3 January 2017. The ATSB is examining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to operate on the accident flight.
Air traffic control audio
Examination of the recorded air traffic control radio calls for Essendon Tower on 21 February 2017 revealed that, shortly after take-off, the pilot broadcast a MAYDAY call. The pilot repeated the word ‘MAYDAY’ seven times within that transmission. No additional information regarding the nature of the emergency was broadcast.
Further investigation
The investigation is continuing and will include:
examination of both propellers to determine the blade angles at impact, their pre-impact condition and to assess the impact damage
further examination of a number of retained engine and airframe components
further interviews with a number of witnesses and involved parties
further analysis of numerous witness reports
review of the aircraft’s maintenance and operational records
review of the meteorological conditions at the time
review of the approval process for the building that was struck by the aircraft
analysis of aircraft performance and other operational factors
review of the pilot’s medical and flying history
review of the operating processes and approvals
determining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to record during the accident flight
further analysis of recorded information, including:
– Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast data
– dash camera and other video footage provided by witnesses
– closed-circuit television video footage
– air traffic control audio recordings.
Identification of safety issues
Should any significant safety issues be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately bring those issues to the attention of the relevant authorities or organisations. This will allow those parties to develop safety action to address the safety issues. Details of such safety issues, and any safety action in response, will be published on the ATSB website at www.atsb.gov.au.
The information contained in this web update is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and is derived from the initial investigation of the occurrence. Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB’s understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update.
As a category 4 cyclone crosses the Queensland coast with winds of up to 263kmh causing destruction in several towns along the coast, the attending media, all vying to outdo each other with a scoop are heard to say:
“Is there any wind?”
“Is there any rain?”
“How secure is your home?”
“How many cyclones have you lived through?”
Reporters telling people to remain inside their houses while they remain outside in the wind and weather of the category 4 cyclone with no personal protective equipment!
Has all the other news disappeared?
Have you experienced anything like this before? “No, we are from Norway!”
Male body boarding off Airlie Beach. Reporter: “We might alert authorities about this!”
“Can you paint a picture of how the system has changed, and how it has evolved?”
“Our advice is don’t go out!” Says TV reporter on the street in 130kmh winds!
“What’s it like when you can’t stand straight in the wind?”
“The situation may deteriorate in the next two hours!”
“All this rain coming in, you can see it really coming in!”
“Each cyclone is different!”
“Things are loose!”
“Describe what is happening outside at the moment!”
“Emergency services are not going to get in as quick as they would like to, as they can’t get in!”
“I can’t tell you how fast these gusts are blowing!”
“Residents are bracing for a category 4 impact!”
“Where are all the people (emergency service workers) and where will they be deployed?” Remember, they can’t get in!
“The wind has whipped ferocious tides!” Says reporter standing on a narrow wooden jetty!
Aviation experts are baffled as to what caused Tuesday’s fatal plane crash in Melbourne, as investigators continue to sift through the wreckage searching for clues.
Four American tourists on a golfing trip and the Australian pilot Max Quartermain died when their aircraft VH-ZCR, crashed shortly after take-off.
The plane, a Beechcraft King Air B200, was headed for King Island off Tasmania’s north coast, crashed into the roof of the nearby Essendon Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) shopping centre and exploded into flames.
Photo: Mike Fosberg
The DFO centre is closed indefinitely while the investigation is conducted, while Essendon Airport (YMES) – where the plane took off from – reopened Thursday morning.
The black box flight recorder from the plane is expected to arrive at Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) headquarters on Thursday.
The Australian Transit Safety Bureau (ATSB) raised conjecture Wednesday when it discovered several “interesting facets” to the accident, as specialists questioned what caused the “high performance” twin-engine aircraft to fail.
“That’s the big question, there’s no reason whatsoever why that plane could not have kept going,” aviation journalist Geoffrey Thomas told The New Daily.
“There should be no issue whatsoever, even if it’s fully loaded (full with passengers, fuel or cargo) with maintaining flight on one engine.”
According to the ABC, the plane had flown just five hours since its last maintenance check in January.
The flight recording website Flightradar24 lists no recorded flights for this aircraft since 4th February.
While investigations are still ongoing, there were several potential causes for an aircraft to lose power and go down.
Going through the checklist for this particular situation, he said a pilot must ‘feather’ the engine/propeller, retract the undercarriage, and put the nose down for a more levelled flight.
It appears for some reason none of this happened, it appears that either the pilot was not able to do this or he was prevented from running the engine failure check list.
The pilot should have been able to continue flying using one engine.
Industry experts believe the functionality of the plane’s auto-feathering feature, and how the engine was feathered, are the most crucial aspects of the crash.
It is possible the engine that failed did not auto-feather, or could not be feathered by the pilot. The result of not feathering correctly, it could have resulted in the windmilling propeller producing significant additional drag and have deleterious affect on aircraft controllability.
It’s not yet known if auto-feather was disabled, or could not be feathered by the pilot.
The sequence of events of the mayday call were also brought into question by Mr Thomas.
There are the three things the pilot must do when a problem arises; aviate – fly the plane, navigate – fly it in the right direction, and then communicate the problem.
It appears that the pilot communicated the problem almost instantaneously.”
It is unknown what communication was made during the mayday call.
‘Several factors leap out at you’: ATSB
The Australian Transit Safety Bureau’s chief commissioner Greg Hood said the agency had already found several clues to the crash.
“With any accident, particularly aviation accidents, we find that initially there are several factors that leap out at you,” Mr Hood told reporters on Wednesday.
“So whilst in the initial walk-through yesterday, the initial examination of records, we have discovered some interesting facets, we really need to gather all the evidence and conduct the analysis before we can say what caused the accident.
“I realise there is a lot of speculation.”
Mr Hood would not give any further detail but confirmed the plane is able to take off safely with one engine.
The ATSB said it would release a preliminary report about the crash in 27 days.
A Beechcraft King Air B200 (VH-ZCR) charter plane on take-off from Essendon airport (YMES) crashed into a Melbourne shopping complex Tuesday morning killing all five people on board and sparking a massive blaze.
The Beechcraft aircraft believed to be involved in this incident. Photo: Jetphotos.com/George Canciani
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Leane confirmed no one on board the plane survived the tragedy, but declined to give details of the victims.
Assistant Commissioner Leane said it is believed there were no fatalities apart from those in the plane. The Beechcraft King Air, five-person charter flight to King Island crashed soon after take off from Essendon Airport in the city’s north at 9:00 am.
The pilot was aged in his 60s and his four passengers were American tourists, Channel Seven reported.
The Advocate newspaper in Tasmania quoted a source on King Island as saying the plane was carrying golfers.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews refused to confirm any details of the passengers’ identities.
“We are currently reaching out to their families to provide them with the support that they need to try to comfort them at what must be just such a horrible moment,” he told a media conference.
Australian Corporate Jet Centres told the ABC the plane (shown above is now operated by boutique private charter flight operator Corporate and Leisure Aviation based at Essendon airport.
The plane called mayday as it was taking off and Victoria Police Superintendent Mick Frewen said it appeared to be affected by a “catastrophic engine failure”
The plane crashed into the back of two shops, Focus on Furniture and JB HiFi, he said.
Police are yet to release any details of possible casualties.
More than 16 fire crews fought to put out the blaze at the DFO factory outlet complex near Bulla Rd in Essendon Fields.
“It appears a light plane, which is a charter flight, has impacted the DFO [shopping centre] at Essendon Fields. “There’s also debris that’s been left on the [Tullamarine] freeway.”
Victorian Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley told a media conference Essendon Airport would be closed until further notice while the investigation into the cause of the crash get underway.
He said in-bound lanes of the Tullamarine Freeway would remain closed for a number of hours until that can be cleared and evidence collected evidence for the investigation.
An emergency services spokesman at the scene said motorists should avoid the area.
“Our advice to motorists is find an alternative route. We just want to make sure that’s preserved as much as possible,” he said.
“We are awaiting CASA advice and the Bureau of Air Safety.”
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has asked witnesses to the plane crash to call 1800 020 616 to help with its investigation.
Photo: Mike Fosberg
Fire Under control
A spokeswoman from the Metropolitan Fire Brigade said DFO fire was brought under control about 10:30 am.
It took about 56 fire fighters 90 minutes to bring the blaze, caused by the plane crash, under control, the MFB said.
“The fire has been brought under control and the incident has been handed over to Victoria Police.”
Mr Andrews praised the work of firefighters.
“This was a very complex and unpredictable fire, but our highly skilled trained firefighter efforts have done an outstanding job in extinguishing this blaze,” he said.
The shopping centre was yet to open, but the wellbeing of all staff at the complex has not been confirmed.
A spokesperson from furniture retailer Nick Scali confirmed the store was staffed at the time, but could not confirm whether any were affected.
Retailer Spotlight, a tenant at the DFO complex issued a statement confirming the aircraft crashed into its rear warehouse and that “all staff had been accounted for”.
A spokesperson from another tenant, Focus on Furniture, told The New Daily that no staff were at the store at the time of the crash.
JB HiFi and the Good Guys both confirmed all staff are accounted for.
‘It was shaking’
Nick Scali employee Grace Martin told The New Daily she was sitting outside the shopping complex when she saw the plane.
“I saw the plane flying across the top of the roof and it was shaking,” she said.
“I ran across to Dan Murphy’s. I heard the big bang and saw all the flames. This is just really sad.”
Nearby resident Max Paladino told The New Daily he ran over to the crash site workers from a nearby construction site to see if he could help.
“It was just adrenaline,” he said. “There was no way possible we could do anything.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.
Discussion on the law that applies to or affects Australia's emergency services and emergency management, by Michael Eburn, PhD, Australian Lawyer. Email: meburn@australianemergencylaw.com
Oh, let's see...distinguished Gen-X'er, frustrated writer and mom living in the confines of a small town that thinks it's a big deal. And have I mentioned Walmart yet?
Navy aircraft use different terms for go-arounds and balked landings.
Ken Hoke has been flying for over 30 years. He’s currently a Boeing 757 & 767 captain flying international routes for a package express airline. In his spare time, he writes 
Words, By George! 