Infrared Aircraft Deicing System
Henry W. Hessing, PE
September 2005
Abstract
This paper describes planning required for construction and installation of an infrared aircraft deicing facility at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Introduction
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA) is located on the shoreline of Jamaica Bay. During significant winter storms, the airport encounters heavy, wet snows.
Some airlines perform deicing at remote pads within the apron area of the terminal: other airlines perform deicing at their gates. Cargo carriers deice at their respective cargo areas. Those aircraft that deice at remote locations must first perform a “preliminary” deicing, which could include deicing of gears and control surfaces in order for aircraft to maneuver. If the aircraft is to move under its own power, the engine inlets need to be clear. Aircraft where ice/snow presents a higher risk of being ingested into engines (e.g. MD 80 series and similar) typically complete their deicing and anti-icing at the gate.
Once receiving a preliminary deicing, aircraft taxi toward the departures runway. The anti-icing hold over time may be exceeded if the weather is severe or the taxi time is long. In this case, the aircraft would require a “secondary” deicing.
The PANYNJ decided to construct one radiant deicing facility on a vacant parcel of land adjacent to Hangar 12 at JFKIA.
Need for the Project
There is not enough ramp capacity at JFK to deice aircraft without causing delays. Temporary locations will be replaced by a permanent location. The new facility will provide airlines with a safe, convenient, centralized and efficient location to deice aircraft. The deicing facility will provide an additional area where aircraft can deice, essentially increasing “deicing capacity” at JFK.
The infrared aircraft deicing system will be housed within one clamshell type structure capable of deicing Group 3, Group 4 and Group 5 aircraft up to a 747 - 300. Use of this system provides an environmental benefit in that it employs infrared energy and only a minimum amount of glycol, a deicing fluid, to deice aircraft. This technique is an alternative to conventional glycol spraying which is commonly used in the deicing process.
History
In 2002, Radiant Aviation Services Incorporated (Radiant) sent an unsolicited proposal to the Port Authority offering to provide their patented Infra-Tek technology for use in an infrared radiant deicing facility at JFK. The Infra-Tek system is the only radiant deicing system that has earned FAA Flight Standards approval for deicing commercial aircraft. The Infra-Tek system has been installed for Continental Airlines at Newark Liberty International Airport and earlier versions were installed at Rheinlander-Oneida County Airport in Wisconsin and Buffalo International Airport in New York.
The Site
John F Kennedy International Airport is located in the southeast section of Queens County, New York City, adjacent to Jamaica Bay. By highway, it is fifteen miles from midtown Manhattan. Equivalent in size to all of Manhattan Island from 42nd Street to the Battery, JFKIA consists of 4,930 acres. The 2.3-acre, infrared aircraft-deicing site is located on the ramp abutting Hangar 12 that was formerly operated by TWA.
Benefits
Benefits of increased capacity include operational performance by reducing airline delays and flight cancellations that could have been attributed to insufficient capacity.
Benefits to the Port Authority and airlines include: fewer equipment movements on the airside operating area during winter storms; a reduction in conventional infrastructure such as glycol storage, trucking and parking; a dramatic reduction in glycol use; and because of the potential to reduce delays, cancellations there is a potential for airline cost savings. This is a year round facility which may be used for maintenance during off-season.
Two principal objectives for the PANYNJ are improving utilization of airport infrastructure and providing adequate capacity to meet the level and distribution of demand on various components of the airport system including airside facilities. Providing necessary efficient capacity to allow the airlines to deice aircraft is consistent with Port Authority goals of enhancing JFK as a world-class airport.
Identification of Alternatives Evaluated
Site
In early 2001, the Port Authority conducted a study to examine the feasibility of a centralized deicing facility at JFK. Several alternate locations were examined for conventional deicing, but were found to be economically unfeasible and not operationally viable. This is the best site available that can be used to operate a new radiant deicing facility and still meet holdover times.
The no action alternative would result in operational delays and flight cancellations.
Sole Source
Why use RAS as sole source for a design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) contract?
Radiant Aviation Services, Inc. (RAS) markets the Infra Tek Infrared Aircraft Deicing System. They are the inventor and sole supplier of the Infra Tek Infrared Aircraft Deicing System. RAS holds patent protection for: “Method of, and apparatus for, deicing an aircraft by infrared radiation.”
RAS has completed a successful operation of a single unit installed and operated at Newark Liberty International Airport for Continental Airlines.
In August 2003, the FAA approved a Grant Agreement with the Port Authority for construction of an Infrared Aircraft deicing Facility on the Hangar 12 ramp at JFKIA, which is to conform to FAA Advisory circular 150/5100-14C. The Infra-Tek system is the only known radiant deicing system approved by the FAA for deicing commercial aircraft.
Justification for Sole Source Procurement
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-14 (Change 2 issued Aug 31, 2000), “Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities”, provides technical performance tests and related standards and recommendations for fixed type infra-red deicing technologies for aircraft. The FAA advised JFK Redevelopment (via e-mail 08 Sep 03) "the only fixed system that has earned Flight Standards approval to date for such applications has been the system that PANYNJ has in operation by Continental Airlines at Newark Liberty International Airport." The system referenced is a radiant deicing system known as the InfraTek Infrared Aircraft Deicing System. It was invented by Radiant Aviation Services, Inc., which holds patent protection for "Method of, and apparatus for, deicing an aircraft by infrared radiation."
Since there is only one approved system/manufacturer, no other vendors currently are qualified.
On February 5, 2004 the FAA wrote a letter to the PANYNJ Aviation Planning Division stating, “Considering the reasons presented in the letter (September 18, 2003) and understanding the unique nature of this technology: we hereby concur with your request to proceed with a sole source contract with Radiant Aviation Services (RAS) for the Infra Tek Infrared Deicing System.”
How it Works
Studies dating as far back as 1948 have reviewed the use of infrared energy for heating and found it safe.
Combustion of natural/propane gas is controlled to create targeted electromagnetic waves. When energy reaches frost, snow or ice melting and evaporation occur. Infrared energy doesn’t reach the aircraft surface until it is exposed and then it reflects away. When a zone (e.g. a fuselage) is completed, it is switched to half power to prevent snow/ice re-accumulation.
The specification for the Energy Processing Units (EPUs) reads: "Each EPU burner is factory tested to a maximum of 50,000 BTU/hr (approximately 50 CFH) according to ANSI requirements for infrared gas heaters. Total rack consumption is a maximum of 200,000 BTU/Hr." Annual consumption can be estimated by summing total hours run time for each rack times maximum rack consumption.
Industry Acceptance
SAE G12 Deicing sub-committee included the use of infrared deicing facilities as a recommended deicing practice in ARP4737E “Deicing Methods” Section 6.1.3. G12 members include airlines, regulators and aircraft manufacturers. Infrared deicing facilities are currently the only reduced or zero glycol technology to be approved for inclusion in that document as a deicing method. It is the only FAA “approved for use” infrared deicing facility per AC150/5300-14 Change #2.
Project Costs
The project construction cost is estimated as follows:
Description Cost (in millions)
Design & Construction: $ 8.8
Planning and Engineering 0.3
Admin & General: 0.3
Contingency: 0
Financial Expense: 0.1
Total Project Cost: $ 9.5
Financial Analysis
The costs are fully recoverable through Federal Aid and operation payments received from Radiant. The level of commitment by airlines letters of intent indicates that this project will be self-sustaining.
Selected Alternative Description
The infrared aircraft deicing facility (System 2500) consists of an open-ended hangar type structure housing the patented Infra-Tek technology that transforms natural gas into infrared radiant energy emitted through “energy processing units” (EPUs) configured to efficiently melt snow and ice from aircraft surfaces. The proposed system is 262 feet long by 262 feet wide and approximately 82 feet high. It will contain approximately 430 EPUs and can treat ADG #5 aircraft up to the size of a 747-200/300.
The facility will be located on 2.3 acres of land on the Hangar 12 site that has been vacant since TWA ceased operations. Its proximity to the runways allows taxi times that meet FAA requirements. The site has been planned to assure that Hangar 12 can still be operational.
Critical Issues
Site and Land Use
The Hangar 12 site is compatible with existing and planned airside land use.
Environmental
The PANYNJ submitted an Environmental Evaluation Form for the proposed Infrared Aircraft deicing Facility at John F Kennedy International Airport, New York. The document described the project and that it involves construction and operations of an infrared, pre-flight deicing facility that would be housed in a clamshell like structure.
The FAA determined in a letter dated October 10, 2002 that this “project does not have the characteristics that require a formal NEPA environmental assessment nor does it contain the potential for causing an environmental impact. We have, therefore, determined that this project qualifies as a documented “Categorical Exclusion” and have executed this finding accordingly (signed 9/26/02). Please note that this represents the formal Federal Environmental Finding.”
Schedule
Critical Project Milestones
Board authorization was required and obtained in June 2004 to implement the project as sole source procurement for designing, building operating and maintaining (DBOM) an Infrared Aircraft Deicing System.
Design Start and Completion
With Board approval the DBOM contract was prepared and reviewed by PA Law.
Construction Start and Completion
It is anticipated that the facility will be operational for the winter season 2005 - 2006.
Key Third party Coordination and Approvals
Third party coordination includes Keyspan who will supply gas to the facility; the FAA who has approved AIP funding; the airline community who have been asked to complete letters of intent to use the facility.
Facility Certification
RAS will provide the equipment, assembly, installation and commissioning of the system along with warranty service. RAS will submit a Preliminary Acceptance Test Procedure for review by the Engineer approximately 30 days after award.
Conclusions
The JFK Infrared Aircraft Deicing facility will deice aircraft in less time and for a lower cost than conventional deicing. An environmental benefit is that it employs infrared energy and only a minimum amount of glycol. Airline delays and cancellations that could have been attributed to insufficient capacity will be reduced.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Coach Giuffre and the West Islip Rifle Team
Coach Giuffre and the West Islip Rifle Team
-Henry W. Hessing
When taxpayers voted to construct the West Islip High School, the authorization included an indoor swimming pool and a rifle range. The rifle range is located southwest and at the same level as the pool. There is a locked door that can be opened. Just travel down one flight of stairs, make a left into a hallway and enter through another door on your left. It has been said that this range is the best or at least the second best range in Suffolk County. It was closed in 1999.
Boy Scout Troop 118 met in the Higbie Lane elementary school during the 1950’s and 60’s. The boys sold candy bars and raised money to purchase four (4) bolt - action open peep sight rifles. The rifles were kept in Scoutmaster James Badger’s house. If you were twelve years old, you could learn to fire a .22 rifle every Wednesday night at the West Islip High School rifle range. And many of us did. Under adult supervision, we fired at NRA targets positioned fifty feet down range.
The high school’s representative was present whenever the scouts met at the range. Mr. Ed Giuffre and the adult scout leaders instructed the lads. Many of the adults spent their time with youth because they had served in World War II and wanted to pass their knowledge and skills to the boys. We learned about safety. We learned to clean the rifles and sweep the range when we were done. We learned to fire from the four basic positions - prone, sitting, kneeling and standing. The most difficult position to master for most of us was the standing or off-hand position. I was an awkward teenager. I never felt comfortable in the kneeling position so I concentrated learning to fire from the standing position.
Jimmy Badger was a senior in high school. I was in awe of Jim just because he was a senior. Jimmy was taking physics because he wanted to go to medical school. Sometimes he’d stay home and study physics rather than come down to the range. At that time, I didn’t know what physics was but if Jimmy had to skip Wednesday nights to study, and miss all the fun shooting, it had to be important.
At the end of the year, our Boy Scout troop held a competition. Jimmy missed it because he was studying. Johnny Norton, a junior in high school, won with the best score. He was four years older than me. I gave him a good challenge but I was happy to come in second to him. I liked Johnny from the time on a campout when he got me up early to go fishing with him. He loved fishing and he caught quite a few. Johnny wanted to be a doctor. I sure hope both Jimmy and Johnny got their wish.
Our shooting skills were honed on the West Islip High School rifle range. From seventh to ninth grade, I shot with the Boy Scouts. In tenth grade, I tried out for the high school team. Mr. Giuffre, the high school coach, must have had a difficult time selecting from all of us who tried out. On a blackboard, he wrote the names of those who made the team. It was the first time in my life that I was elated to see my name on a blackboard. I thanked him.
Riflery was barely considered a sport by most Athletic Directors. Only a few recognized it as a character or citizen builder. Mr. Joe Sebasteanski, West Islip’s AD thought it was a full sport and more. Though his first love was football, Mr. Jack Braddish got the rifle team all it needed.
Nassau County had the most teams while Suffolk County had just a few so we fired against teams from near and far. High school teams fired from two positions – prone and standing. Six boys would shoot with the five highest scores counting toward the team’s total points. You had to be finished in twenty minutes, as these were timed competitions. You would try for a perfect score, 100 points or ten bull’s eyes out of ten while firing prone and the same while firing off-hand or standing. Shooting off-hand was more difficult than the other positions. We knew how quickly you could lose points in that position.
The rifle I used was an Anschultz with closed sights. It weighed about 7.5 lbs. The bull’s eye is about the size of an eraser on a pencil. To hit it consistently from fifty feet took practice so we practiced every day after school. We’d encourage each other to improve all the time. If you shot a bull’s eye, the spotter would tell you how much of it you took out. We loved to hear the spotter call out “pin-wheel” because it meant you took out the whole bull’s eye.
You must have excellent eyesight and you must be very steady to fire accurately. Riflery requires concentration. Coach suggested we do push-ups at home to build arm strength to hold the rifle steady and we did. We wore shooting jackets and used slings around our left arm when shooting prone. A spotter would tell you how you were doing or might suggest making an adjustment. We’d try to finish prone rather quickly, and then take off the slings in order to spend more time shooting off-hand. This is what separated the better shooters – how well you could shoot from the standing position. The total possible score was 200 points for an individual and since five scores counted, 1000 points for the team. After practice, we cleaned the weapons and the range before leaving. This is where we learned respect for and taking care of our equipment. These lessons have stayed with me my entire life.
For the first match of our sophomore year, Mr. Giuffre selected Flip Mueller and me to shoot with the upperclassmen. There after, and until we graduated, Flip and I fired in every competition for West Islip High School. I didn’t do well enough for my score to count in that first match because I was nervous; I wasn’t familiar with “match pressure.” We lost that one to Massapequa. I did better in the next match and we won. Coach added Pete Pauwels so there were three sophomores and three juniors shooting. I think we won half our matches that year, but with Pete shooting, we won all the matches during the second half of the season. This was the beginning of our winning streak.
With each win, our team developed confidence. The more we won, the more we expected to win. But none of us took winning for granted. We knew we had to shoot well to be victorious and we did. As an individual, I knew my score would count in every match so I wanted to do well. I didn’t want to let my team down. You can’t think about the pretty blonde in homeroom or French class. In fact, you can’t think about match pressure or anything else when you shoot. You cannot let emotion interfere with your concentration, controlled breathing and relaxation techniques because emotional shooters don’t shoot well. There was one practice when I put it all together and fired 99 out of 100 from the off-hand position. It was the first time any of us had done it. Mr. Giuffre stapled that target to the wall for all to see.
During our junior year, Mr. Giuffre, who we sometimes called Uncle Ed but never to him directly, decided that the best way to keep us sharp was to have a little internal team competition. If memory serves, I believe he awarded three trophies at the end of the year. I received the trophy for shooting the highest average score of 186 for the season. Another key thing coach did was in selecting Pete Gambaro and Steve Knobl and adding them into the mix.
Our high school principal, Mr. John O’Donnell made announcements every morning on the PA system. He‘d tell the student body how the various teams did in competition. When our swimming team beat Plainview, there was a roar heard throughout the school. Sometimes he’d say how individuals performed. And he did this for the rifle team as well. The kids in school started to ask about our winning streak. Riflery became very popular.
A boys’ rifle club already existed and a girls’ rifle club was created. Mr. Giuffre coached the clubs as well as the team. The West Islip High School Rifle Clubs and teams were open for all students. One of the best was a girl named Barby MacNeil who went on to earn national honors on the college level. In those days, the school administration was wary of any coed sport and unfortunately, Barby was not allowed to compete with the boys but she could still be a member of the rifle club. If Barby MacNeil had been allowed to compete with the boys, she would have been the best.
The core of our team in the winter season 1964 –1965, our senior year, was Pete Pauwels, Flip Mueller, Pete Gambaro, Steve Knobl and myself. Pete Pauwels and I were elected co-captains. It didn’t matter who the sixth shooter was. Coach knew he could put anyone in that slot and give them match experience because the five of us always shot well. We expected to win every match and we did. We had six league matches and 6 – 8 non-league matches. We beat Nassau and Suffolk, public, catholic and military schools. And most of all we had fun.
We set the Suffolk County league record firing 919 out of 1000. Steve fired 178, Pete Gambaro 182, Flip and I – 184, and Pete Pauwels led the team with an individual Suffolk County record, 191. He was hot that day! I will never forget when Coach Giuffre told us that we had set the county record!! How great that must have been for him. He had worked for years patiently teaching and encouraging us, and he got the results – a championship team.
In our final league match in 1965, we again broke 900 beating Deer Park 913 to 842. Steve shot 176, Pete P, Flip and Pete G all fired 184 and I fired 185. We beat them by an average 14 points a man. We beat other teams by greater margins. Most importantly, we completed the season undefeated in both league and non-league competition.
The following week, we won the Section Eleven Title. We were the Suffolk County Rifle Champs. Coach Giuffre said the school received a trophy in June 1965 but I’ve never seen it. I’m told that the trophy is locked in the range. It is the first championship trophy earned by the WIHS rifle team. The WIHS team next won again in 1988-89.
There were individual records set during the 1964 – 1965 season in league match competition. Pete Pauwels shot 92 off-hand when he fired the county record 191. Pete Pauwels and Pete Gambaro both shot perfect prone scores of 100. Flip Mueller shot 90 out of 100 in the off-hand position, three separate times.
Coach Ed Giuffre started a program to instruct kids who just wanted to have fun shooting rifles and created an opportunity where we learned what it takes to win. He set the example for us in manner and decorum. He was a positive influence, always using words of encouragement. Members of the West Islip High School rifle team learned to control emotion, concentrate and gain confidence. We learned from our coach that individuals could pull together as a team and to encourage each other just as he encouraged each of us to be the best.
We faced all competition. We learned to win, and to win consistently. The WIHS Rifle Team was undefeated for two and a half years because Coach Ed Giuffre taught us to believe in ourselves. With that spirit, it was natural for us to have fun.
If there was ever a coach who should be inducted into the West Islip High School Hall of Fame, it is Coach Ed Giuffre.
-Henry W. Hessing
When taxpayers voted to construct the West Islip High School, the authorization included an indoor swimming pool and a rifle range. The rifle range is located southwest and at the same level as the pool. There is a locked door that can be opened. Just travel down one flight of stairs, make a left into a hallway and enter through another door on your left. It has been said that this range is the best or at least the second best range in Suffolk County. It was closed in 1999.
Boy Scout Troop 118 met in the Higbie Lane elementary school during the 1950’s and 60’s. The boys sold candy bars and raised money to purchase four (4) bolt - action open peep sight rifles. The rifles were kept in Scoutmaster James Badger’s house. If you were twelve years old, you could learn to fire a .22 rifle every Wednesday night at the West Islip High School rifle range. And many of us did. Under adult supervision, we fired at NRA targets positioned fifty feet down range.
The high school’s representative was present whenever the scouts met at the range. Mr. Ed Giuffre and the adult scout leaders instructed the lads. Many of the adults spent their time with youth because they had served in World War II and wanted to pass their knowledge and skills to the boys. We learned about safety. We learned to clean the rifles and sweep the range when we were done. We learned to fire from the four basic positions - prone, sitting, kneeling and standing. The most difficult position to master for most of us was the standing or off-hand position. I was an awkward teenager. I never felt comfortable in the kneeling position so I concentrated learning to fire from the standing position.
Jimmy Badger was a senior in high school. I was in awe of Jim just because he was a senior. Jimmy was taking physics because he wanted to go to medical school. Sometimes he’d stay home and study physics rather than come down to the range. At that time, I didn’t know what physics was but if Jimmy had to skip Wednesday nights to study, and miss all the fun shooting, it had to be important.
At the end of the year, our Boy Scout troop held a competition. Jimmy missed it because he was studying. Johnny Norton, a junior in high school, won with the best score. He was four years older than me. I gave him a good challenge but I was happy to come in second to him. I liked Johnny from the time on a campout when he got me up early to go fishing with him. He loved fishing and he caught quite a few. Johnny wanted to be a doctor. I sure hope both Jimmy and Johnny got their wish.
Our shooting skills were honed on the West Islip High School rifle range. From seventh to ninth grade, I shot with the Boy Scouts. In tenth grade, I tried out for the high school team. Mr. Giuffre, the high school coach, must have had a difficult time selecting from all of us who tried out. On a blackboard, he wrote the names of those who made the team. It was the first time in my life that I was elated to see my name on a blackboard. I thanked him.
Riflery was barely considered a sport by most Athletic Directors. Only a few recognized it as a character or citizen builder. Mr. Joe Sebasteanski, West Islip’s AD thought it was a full sport and more. Though his first love was football, Mr. Jack Braddish got the rifle team all it needed.
Nassau County had the most teams while Suffolk County had just a few so we fired against teams from near and far. High school teams fired from two positions – prone and standing. Six boys would shoot with the five highest scores counting toward the team’s total points. You had to be finished in twenty minutes, as these were timed competitions. You would try for a perfect score, 100 points or ten bull’s eyes out of ten while firing prone and the same while firing off-hand or standing. Shooting off-hand was more difficult than the other positions. We knew how quickly you could lose points in that position.
The rifle I used was an Anschultz with closed sights. It weighed about 7.5 lbs. The bull’s eye is about the size of an eraser on a pencil. To hit it consistently from fifty feet took practice so we practiced every day after school. We’d encourage each other to improve all the time. If you shot a bull’s eye, the spotter would tell you how much of it you took out. We loved to hear the spotter call out “pin-wheel” because it meant you took out the whole bull’s eye.
You must have excellent eyesight and you must be very steady to fire accurately. Riflery requires concentration. Coach suggested we do push-ups at home to build arm strength to hold the rifle steady and we did. We wore shooting jackets and used slings around our left arm when shooting prone. A spotter would tell you how you were doing or might suggest making an adjustment. We’d try to finish prone rather quickly, and then take off the slings in order to spend more time shooting off-hand. This is what separated the better shooters – how well you could shoot from the standing position. The total possible score was 200 points for an individual and since five scores counted, 1000 points for the team. After practice, we cleaned the weapons and the range before leaving. This is where we learned respect for and taking care of our equipment. These lessons have stayed with me my entire life.
For the first match of our sophomore year, Mr. Giuffre selected Flip Mueller and me to shoot with the upperclassmen. There after, and until we graduated, Flip and I fired in every competition for West Islip High School. I didn’t do well enough for my score to count in that first match because I was nervous; I wasn’t familiar with “match pressure.” We lost that one to Massapequa. I did better in the next match and we won. Coach added Pete Pauwels so there were three sophomores and three juniors shooting. I think we won half our matches that year, but with Pete shooting, we won all the matches during the second half of the season. This was the beginning of our winning streak.
With each win, our team developed confidence. The more we won, the more we expected to win. But none of us took winning for granted. We knew we had to shoot well to be victorious and we did. As an individual, I knew my score would count in every match so I wanted to do well. I didn’t want to let my team down. You can’t think about the pretty blonde in homeroom or French class. In fact, you can’t think about match pressure or anything else when you shoot. You cannot let emotion interfere with your concentration, controlled breathing and relaxation techniques because emotional shooters don’t shoot well. There was one practice when I put it all together and fired 99 out of 100 from the off-hand position. It was the first time any of us had done it. Mr. Giuffre stapled that target to the wall for all to see.
During our junior year, Mr. Giuffre, who we sometimes called Uncle Ed but never to him directly, decided that the best way to keep us sharp was to have a little internal team competition. If memory serves, I believe he awarded three trophies at the end of the year. I received the trophy for shooting the highest average score of 186 for the season. Another key thing coach did was in selecting Pete Gambaro and Steve Knobl and adding them into the mix.
Our high school principal, Mr. John O’Donnell made announcements every morning on the PA system. He‘d tell the student body how the various teams did in competition. When our swimming team beat Plainview, there was a roar heard throughout the school. Sometimes he’d say how individuals performed. And he did this for the rifle team as well. The kids in school started to ask about our winning streak. Riflery became very popular.
A boys’ rifle club already existed and a girls’ rifle club was created. Mr. Giuffre coached the clubs as well as the team. The West Islip High School Rifle Clubs and teams were open for all students. One of the best was a girl named Barby MacNeil who went on to earn national honors on the college level. In those days, the school administration was wary of any coed sport and unfortunately, Barby was not allowed to compete with the boys but she could still be a member of the rifle club. If Barby MacNeil had been allowed to compete with the boys, she would have been the best.
The core of our team in the winter season 1964 –1965, our senior year, was Pete Pauwels, Flip Mueller, Pete Gambaro, Steve Knobl and myself. Pete Pauwels and I were elected co-captains. It didn’t matter who the sixth shooter was. Coach knew he could put anyone in that slot and give them match experience because the five of us always shot well. We expected to win every match and we did. We had six league matches and 6 – 8 non-league matches. We beat Nassau and Suffolk, public, catholic and military schools. And most of all we had fun.
We set the Suffolk County league record firing 919 out of 1000. Steve fired 178, Pete Gambaro 182, Flip and I – 184, and Pete Pauwels led the team with an individual Suffolk County record, 191. He was hot that day! I will never forget when Coach Giuffre told us that we had set the county record!! How great that must have been for him. He had worked for years patiently teaching and encouraging us, and he got the results – a championship team.
In our final league match in 1965, we again broke 900 beating Deer Park 913 to 842. Steve shot 176, Pete P, Flip and Pete G all fired 184 and I fired 185. We beat them by an average 14 points a man. We beat other teams by greater margins. Most importantly, we completed the season undefeated in both league and non-league competition.
The following week, we won the Section Eleven Title. We were the Suffolk County Rifle Champs. Coach Giuffre said the school received a trophy in June 1965 but I’ve never seen it. I’m told that the trophy is locked in the range. It is the first championship trophy earned by the WIHS rifle team. The WIHS team next won again in 1988-89.
There were individual records set during the 1964 – 1965 season in league match competition. Pete Pauwels shot 92 off-hand when he fired the county record 191. Pete Pauwels and Pete Gambaro both shot perfect prone scores of 100. Flip Mueller shot 90 out of 100 in the off-hand position, three separate times.
Coach Ed Giuffre started a program to instruct kids who just wanted to have fun shooting rifles and created an opportunity where we learned what it takes to win. He set the example for us in manner and decorum. He was a positive influence, always using words of encouragement. Members of the West Islip High School rifle team learned to control emotion, concentrate and gain confidence. We learned from our coach that individuals could pull together as a team and to encourage each other just as he encouraged each of us to be the best.
We faced all competition. We learned to win, and to win consistently. The WIHS Rifle Team was undefeated for two and a half years because Coach Ed Giuffre taught us to believe in ourselves. With that spirit, it was natural for us to have fun.
If there was ever a coach who should be inducted into the West Islip High School Hall of Fame, it is Coach Ed Giuffre.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The Reasoning to Support a Million-Dollar Football Field
The Reasoning to Support a Million-Dollar Football Field
By Henry W. Hessing
The Mayor of the Village of Babylon proceeded correctly in writing an open letter to the public, raising public awareness, and reiterating basic questions that proponents of a million dollar football field should be prepared to answer.
The reasoning presented in various letters to the editor of the Babylon Beacon for purchasing and installing a million dollar football field needs to be stated clearly and concisely. It would be helpful if proponents would prepare a clearly reasoned document that describes the proposed action; the specific authorization being requested; what contracts and procurement method would be implemented; what are the aggregate payments; what financing or investment is required; and what are the sources of funding.
This document should define what the background of the project is; what is the project duration; have there been prior authorizations? If the project is “for the children” has there been a study prepared comparing injuries to athletes on various types of playing surfaces included and thus validating what alternates have been considered and the viability of each? What are the benefits to the Village of Babylon and/or region; what other impacts are there; and what, if any, are the outstanding issues? For example, has there been a traffic study or is an environmental impact statement required?
A financial analysis is required. Whose budget is affected; what is its status; what is the expected cost recovery; and is there any anticipated future authorization from this action? What are the fees or fee schedule? What is the Village’s investment? What are the terms/escalations that have to be obligated to operate and maintain the project? What are the total aggregate payments?
Other comments might include: security requirements; life expectancy of the field and the cost of renewal. Who must sign an agreement? Who has rights to terminate an agreement? Who will be obligated to maintain insurance?
To evaluate the merits of a project, planning is required. By not knowing how to plan a project, by not answering basic questions involved with planning a project, no evaluation can be made.
One letter to the editor stated, “We should all remember that in a civilized society we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of our friends and neighbors.” Unfortunately that statement does not answer the planning questions noted above. If a project is well planned, why does anyone have to make sacrifices? No answer.
Financial decisions for a football field should be based on intelligent planning and not “sacrifices.” The thinking that perpetrates the undefined term “sacrifices for the greater good” means sacrifices of one group are necessary not because they involve any evaluation of the proposed project but because they don’t. This view allows no discrimination between what is of value and what is a none-value.
This view is a full-scale renunciation of value. It believes that the individual has no value. It is paradoxical to proclaim the universal equality of all, while simultaneously invoking special privileges for certain groups. Thus, if the rational and the irrational are to be treated alike, the latter must be given objectively preferential treatment. The proponents preach an amoral equivalence – i.e., a system under which a value is never to be deemed preferable to a non-value because there is no evaluation.
In the name of justice, taxpayers should be demanding a tax cut that lowers their tax bill by a million dollars. The proponents of a million dollar football field do not want a tax cut and do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the taxpayer and give it to people who have not earned it. It is but a twist on the Willy Sutton reasoning for eminent domain under the guise of altruism.
In an article written in February 2001, Edwin A Locke, a professor of management, defined altruism.
“The moral principal used to justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the non-productive are those who receive. The inability or the unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do.
The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel they have no right to their achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so they will not defend their right to their lives and property.
Altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism. Marx’s credo was: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” Man has no right to exist for himself because he is a servant of the state or society to be disposed of as they see fit.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. An American has the “inalienable right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or society. It means that the government’s job is to protect, not to violate, rights.”
The proponents of a million dollar football field would enforce altruism through coercion for a goal they desire. When the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.
Acting in one’s own interest while respecting the rights of others is fully moral – it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice, but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. Proponents of a million dollar football field should be self-reliant, plan their project, be able to defend it and seek private donations. Using tax dollars is a grave injustice. Reducing taxes by a million dollars is only a beginning on the road to a truly just society where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.
By Henry W. Hessing
The Mayor of the Village of Babylon proceeded correctly in writing an open letter to the public, raising public awareness, and reiterating basic questions that proponents of a million dollar football field should be prepared to answer.
The reasoning presented in various letters to the editor of the Babylon Beacon for purchasing and installing a million dollar football field needs to be stated clearly and concisely. It would be helpful if proponents would prepare a clearly reasoned document that describes the proposed action; the specific authorization being requested; what contracts and procurement method would be implemented; what are the aggregate payments; what financing or investment is required; and what are the sources of funding.
This document should define what the background of the project is; what is the project duration; have there been prior authorizations? If the project is “for the children” has there been a study prepared comparing injuries to athletes on various types of playing surfaces included and thus validating what alternates have been considered and the viability of each? What are the benefits to the Village of Babylon and/or region; what other impacts are there; and what, if any, are the outstanding issues? For example, has there been a traffic study or is an environmental impact statement required?
A financial analysis is required. Whose budget is affected; what is its status; what is the expected cost recovery; and is there any anticipated future authorization from this action? What are the fees or fee schedule? What is the Village’s investment? What are the terms/escalations that have to be obligated to operate and maintain the project? What are the total aggregate payments?
Other comments might include: security requirements; life expectancy of the field and the cost of renewal. Who must sign an agreement? Who has rights to terminate an agreement? Who will be obligated to maintain insurance?
To evaluate the merits of a project, planning is required. By not knowing how to plan a project, by not answering basic questions involved with planning a project, no evaluation can be made.
One letter to the editor stated, “We should all remember that in a civilized society we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of our friends and neighbors.” Unfortunately that statement does not answer the planning questions noted above. If a project is well planned, why does anyone have to make sacrifices? No answer.
Financial decisions for a football field should be based on intelligent planning and not “sacrifices.” The thinking that perpetrates the undefined term “sacrifices for the greater good” means sacrifices of one group are necessary not because they involve any evaluation of the proposed project but because they don’t. This view allows no discrimination between what is of value and what is a none-value.
This view is a full-scale renunciation of value. It believes that the individual has no value. It is paradoxical to proclaim the universal equality of all, while simultaneously invoking special privileges for certain groups. Thus, if the rational and the irrational are to be treated alike, the latter must be given objectively preferential treatment. The proponents preach an amoral equivalence – i.e., a system under which a value is never to be deemed preferable to a non-value because there is no evaluation.
In the name of justice, taxpayers should be demanding a tax cut that lowers their tax bill by a million dollars. The proponents of a million dollar football field do not want a tax cut and do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the taxpayer and give it to people who have not earned it. It is but a twist on the Willy Sutton reasoning for eminent domain under the guise of altruism.
In an article written in February 2001, Edwin A Locke, a professor of management, defined altruism.
“The moral principal used to justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the non-productive are those who receive. The inability or the unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do.
The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel they have no right to their achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so they will not defend their right to their lives and property.
Altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism. Marx’s credo was: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” Man has no right to exist for himself because he is a servant of the state or society to be disposed of as they see fit.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. An American has the “inalienable right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or society. It means that the government’s job is to protect, not to violate, rights.”
The proponents of a million dollar football field would enforce altruism through coercion for a goal they desire. When the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.
Acting in one’s own interest while respecting the rights of others is fully moral – it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice, but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. Proponents of a million dollar football field should be self-reliant, plan their project, be able to defend it and seek private donations. Using tax dollars is a grave injustice. Reducing taxes by a million dollars is only a beginning on the road to a truly just society where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
An Argument to Repeal Eminent Domain
An Argument to Repeal Eminent Domain
Henry W. Hessing
From an article written by Larry Salzman dated November 1999 entitled New Eminent Domain Assaults: Taking Private Property for Political Elite, “The fundamental principles of this country are that all men are created equal, that every man is an end to himself endowed with inalienable rights, including property rights, that each man be accorded equal protection by law and that no man be deprived of due process. Eminent domain contradicts these principles. It sacrifices the rights of some individuals in favor of the alleged “public interest” of others. We must choose one set of principles or the other- American tradition or arbitrary rule by official whim. They cannot coexist.” My algebra teacher might have quoted the Identity Principle – “A” equals “A” and “A” cannot equal “B”.
Herb Ladley, an associate editor for Cavalier Daily describes a case in Bristol, Tennessee, where residents defeated a government proposal to confiscate their land and give it to the local NASCAR track by posting signs reminding people of the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.” Local officials accused the landowners of being “greedy” but did not accuse others of being greedy for wanting to use the power of the government to confiscate homes and make themselves wealthy.
In Kelo vs New London homeowners sought to challenge New London, Connecticut’s plan to take their homes for “economic development” via eminent domain. Landowners would receive compensation under the Fifth Amendment mandate. Their claim was that economic development could not be considered “public use.”
The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain might be used for nearly any “public purpose” including economic development. Jonathan H Adler a contributing editor to National Review On Line noted, “It is not clear that the constitution’s text bars property transfer from A to B. The specific legal claim in this case was not strong enough to make a constitutional stand. The dissenting opinion did not prove that the Founders sought to limit the purposes for which eminent domain could be used.” The dissenting judges wrote, “The result is that government has power to transfer from those with fewer resources to those with more.”
A reporter once asked Willy Sutton, the 1930’s outlaw, why he robbed banks. Sutton replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” In an article entitled, The Willy Sutton Theory of Government” March, 2001 Robert Tracinski states, “The criminal’s mindset is that moral justifications and the rights of others are considered irrelevant.” The real issue in Kelo is how we look at government and how we regard basic moral issues.
According to Mr. Tracinski, “the Willy Sutton theory of government is when the left wants to achieve a goal, it doesn’t ask about morality or rights. It asks, ‘where is the money?’” In New London, the local government asked ‘where is the land.’
The theory that turns government into a bank robber or land grabber is the theory of “public good.” According to this theory, the “public good” is the only moral standard. Individual rights and property rights are dispensable. The Willy Sutton form of government means that if someone has land and someone else can argue that “the public” needs it, “then anything goes.” This is political amoralism. The disciples of Willy Sutton want to ignore the principle of individual rights.
Ayn Rand was right when she observed, “since there is no such entity as “the public” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supercedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.”
Mr. Salzman described a similar case in San Diego wherein he noted, “The local government is forcing a politically weak minority of citizens to sacrifice its rights to a well-connected few, in the alleged favor of the majority.” This is exactly what happened in New London, Connecticut. Forgotten and ignored is the fact that the market place works on voluntary transaction. Paraphrasing Mr. Ladley, “If someone refuses to give up his property voluntarily, that does not make it just to motivate him with a bulldozer.” Totalitarian central planning throws out the logic of the marketplace.
If judicial activists have their way, why bother with property rights or individual rights? It is already too late for citizens in New London. Your property could be next. The solution is to repeal Eminent domain entirely.
Henry W. Hessing
From an article written by Larry Salzman dated November 1999 entitled New Eminent Domain Assaults: Taking Private Property for Political Elite, “The fundamental principles of this country are that all men are created equal, that every man is an end to himself endowed with inalienable rights, including property rights, that each man be accorded equal protection by law and that no man be deprived of due process. Eminent domain contradicts these principles. It sacrifices the rights of some individuals in favor of the alleged “public interest” of others. We must choose one set of principles or the other- American tradition or arbitrary rule by official whim. They cannot coexist.” My algebra teacher might have quoted the Identity Principle – “A” equals “A” and “A” cannot equal “B”.
Herb Ladley, an associate editor for Cavalier Daily describes a case in Bristol, Tennessee, where residents defeated a government proposal to confiscate their land and give it to the local NASCAR track by posting signs reminding people of the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.” Local officials accused the landowners of being “greedy” but did not accuse others of being greedy for wanting to use the power of the government to confiscate homes and make themselves wealthy.
In Kelo vs New London homeowners sought to challenge New London, Connecticut’s plan to take their homes for “economic development” via eminent domain. Landowners would receive compensation under the Fifth Amendment mandate. Their claim was that economic development could not be considered “public use.”
The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain might be used for nearly any “public purpose” including economic development. Jonathan H Adler a contributing editor to National Review On Line noted, “It is not clear that the constitution’s text bars property transfer from A to B. The specific legal claim in this case was not strong enough to make a constitutional stand. The dissenting opinion did not prove that the Founders sought to limit the purposes for which eminent domain could be used.” The dissenting judges wrote, “The result is that government has power to transfer from those with fewer resources to those with more.”
A reporter once asked Willy Sutton, the 1930’s outlaw, why he robbed banks. Sutton replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” In an article entitled, The Willy Sutton Theory of Government” March, 2001 Robert Tracinski states, “The criminal’s mindset is that moral justifications and the rights of others are considered irrelevant.” The real issue in Kelo is how we look at government and how we regard basic moral issues.
According to Mr. Tracinski, “the Willy Sutton theory of government is when the left wants to achieve a goal, it doesn’t ask about morality or rights. It asks, ‘where is the money?’” In New London, the local government asked ‘where is the land.’
The theory that turns government into a bank robber or land grabber is the theory of “public good.” According to this theory, the “public good” is the only moral standard. Individual rights and property rights are dispensable. The Willy Sutton form of government means that if someone has land and someone else can argue that “the public” needs it, “then anything goes.” This is political amoralism. The disciples of Willy Sutton want to ignore the principle of individual rights.
Ayn Rand was right when she observed, “since there is no such entity as “the public” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supercedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.”
Mr. Salzman described a similar case in San Diego wherein he noted, “The local government is forcing a politically weak minority of citizens to sacrifice its rights to a well-connected few, in the alleged favor of the majority.” This is exactly what happened in New London, Connecticut. Forgotten and ignored is the fact that the market place works on voluntary transaction. Paraphrasing Mr. Ladley, “If someone refuses to give up his property voluntarily, that does not make it just to motivate him with a bulldozer.” Totalitarian central planning throws out the logic of the marketplace.
If judicial activists have their way, why bother with property rights or individual rights? It is already too late for citizens in New London. Your property could be next. The solution is to repeal Eminent domain entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)