Posted on 05/13/2005 2:03:47 AM PDT by LukeSW
Aero-Views: Shame On All Of You
Fri, 13 May '05
No Heroes In ADIZ Incursion
By ANN Senior Correspondent Kevin R.C. "Hognose" O'Brien
I wasn't flying Wednesday when the city of Washington went into a massive, hyperventilating panic over a light plane in the ADIZ; I was driving the highways, and I got to hear the blow-by-blow on the radio and in periodic phone calls with ANN's Pete Combs. Good grief, what a shameful episode. There's enough shame to go around. Indeed, there are no heroes in this tawdry tale of ADIZ incursion, but there's a whole gaggle of goats:
Shame On The Security Establishment
..in the first place, for being unable to distinguish between a real threat and a bogus one. The physics of the Cessna 150 make it an improbable terror weapon. Indeed, we have an incident to show us that a Cessna 150 is not much threat to the White House. In 1994, a suicidal nutball tried to kamikaze the steel-and-concrete-reinforced landmark, and left an unsightly black smear on the wall and a divot out of the lawn -- who are we looking out for with all this panic, the groundskeepers?
A Cessna 150 does not a warplane make. But steeped in the shibboleths of relativism and egalitarian ignorance, security managers prescribe the same frantic reaction, as if it were some kind of anti-Newtonian universe: "For every action, an identical and hyperbolic overreaction."
The mighty 150 has a gross weight of 1,500 to 1,600 lbs, or about half the weight of a compact car. Even a 172 is lighter gross than the empty weight of my 1965 mustang (~2,500), which is pretty light by new-car standards. I think a typical Camry or similar vehicle is about 3,800 lb. You just can't do a lot of damage with 2,000 lbs unless it's all explosives... I know a little about blowing things up, and served for 25 years alongside the guys with the equivalent of a PhD in blowing things up, the 12BS and 18C demo men of the Army Special Forces. If we can't figure out how to destroy a big, strong building with a Cessna 150, and we can't, it's a pretty safe bet that Osama or whoever can't do it either: he puts on his baggy pants one leg at a time.
Then, there's the whole question of, "what about the building?" The White House is no stranger to hard times, having been burnt to a shell by a British raiding party on August 25, 1814 (the only surviving fixture from before 1814 is a Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington which was secured by a fleeing Dolly Madison). The West Wing burned again in 1929. Yet the building endures. The walls are made of the original stone, reinforced during a 1948-52 renovation with concrete and structural steel, and light GA aircraft are not going to move them. QED. Most other public buildings in Washington are equally robust -- compare the damage and death toll at the Pentagon to that in New York. Or take a good look at the J. Edger Hoover building sometime.
Shame On Our National Leaders
...for not facing the risk (if any?) like grown men. A lot of the current security nonsense has come about because of the physical and even moral cowardice of our current crop of national leaders. If we are "a nation of laws, not of men," why are some men so demanding of special protection?
Our Government is predicated on the idea that no man is divine or irreplaceable. Our Constitution has been frequently amended to ensure that suitable procedures are in place to ensure an orderly succcession and continuity of government.
Apart from the troubling moral issues raised by special privileges for the Washington elite, there are practical issues involved in hasty and ill-advised evacuations like the one we've just seen. I've looked at several airline incidents that rose to the level of accident only when the crew made a judgment call to order an evacuation, and passengers were injured in the evacuation.
Why injure people unnecessarily, when few people are likely to be injured in the extremely unlikely event the worst-case scenario comes to pass, but some people are likely to be injured in a needless evacuation?
Shame On The News Media
I was able to hear the audio from the White House Press Room, and boy howdy, it was a pitiful display. Screaming, and yelling, and blubbering and carrying on. A most unseemly display, but then the most fitting 19th Century word for concept that's defined by the 21st Century word "metrosexual" is probably "poltroon."
The every-man-for-himself-and-devil-take-the-hindmost stampede for the exits was unseemly, unsurprising, and, as noted above, unsafe. You are much safer staying in the building during the attack than bolting for the exit, where you might be trodden under by Helen Thomas or somebody.
I always figured most news people would be no earthly use in a crisis (real, or as in this case, imagined) and now I have my proof.
Shame On The Men In The Plane
You didn't think I was going to let these two clowns off, did you? I mean, I fly in Boston and I know about the ADIZ. My friends in Florida and California know about the ADIZ. According to a family member, the unlucky pilots knew about the ADIZ, but they blundered into it anyway.
Research in the human behavioral subset of "being lost" has shown that humans, when confused about location, will seldom if ever backtrack to the last known location and try again -- even though that method, logically, offers a good chance of success. Instead they will press on forward -- pretty much in whatever direction they happen to be pointing -- for good or for ill. The only antidote to this deeply ingrained behavior, since one can't grab his hippocampus and shake some sense into it, is to have a plan and conscious procedures for safe recovery to a known point when mislocated.
Many people will focus on the instructor, and as the more experienced pilot and authority figure, he's definitely where the buck stops. The FAA will probably recognize this with a certificate suspension or even revocation (since the violation wasn't willful, revocation would be out of line. But the security organs will want their pound of flesh). I hope the instructor subscribed to AOPAs Legal Services Plan.
But the student also deserves a share of the blame. By the time you're doing ambitious cross-countries, you need to have a baseline level of situational awareness. A student can't just ride on the instructor's ticket (even if that is how the FAA sees it, in legal terms). He holds a ticket inscribed not pilot student but student pilot -- the first is the adjective, the second the noun. Students shouldn't be constantly in their instructors' faces, but they should be willing to speak up. Many an airliner has come to grief because a doubting FO held his tongue. If there was ever a place to indulge in bumper sticker behavior, the cockpit is where you "Speak truth to power" and "Question Authority."
These two men had a very unpleasant day, and they have more hard times ahead. But they were lucky; they very nearly died. If the fighter pilots had been what the Air Force calls "fangs out", this whole story would be ten times worse. The 150 pilots will live to fly again -- and one hopes, to enjoy flight again.
One Organization Reacted Credibly
After all this ranting, I ought to close on a positive note -- and there is one to be found. Despite all the things that COULD have gone wrong, the air defense organization reacted with as much restraint as alacrity. If the military and DHS intercept crews hadn't been at the top of their game, if the controllers hadn't been alert, God alone knows what might have happened. These disciplined men and women are trapped in a bad system that's not of their making, but they still performed like a symphony orchestra with Beethoven Himself conducting.
Fine, how were our security people suppose to confirm that was the case? Stip out extras to add capability. Did the have a full tank, or only enough to reach DC - one way trip? Or may be even the much talked about 'suitcase nuke' Too many what ifs to ignore.Add to that the symbolism of a strike even w/o explosives.
'If you aren't going to bother to learn how to read the instruments, then shame on you.'
haha
Improbable like the TWIN TOWERS being brought down?
It is this kind of thinking that allowed 911 to happen in the first place.
My wife, with her patented cynicism amplifier, suggested that the plane was a deliberate test of the security procedures, and that the pilot will slip quietly into obscurity after a bit of show coverage.
I agree with you. This journalist doesn't know anything about physics, yet he makes himself an authority, as journalists seem to do on everything, nowadays.
You forgot the suitcase nuke. It could carry one of those, too.
Those supposed "suitcase nukes" are more sci-fiction than real. They weigh several hundred pounds.
They didn't know what this plane was gonna do... but the point is, they judged the situation correctly in this case. It's not an easy call.
Big terrorist attacks don't bring this country down, piddly vandalistic ones wouldn't either, And that's good news, because eventually, something will happen again that's real. It can't be prevented. Many many good people will try, and often succeed in stopping, deterring and foiling attacks. They will also have to deal with a lot of scares that aren't really attacks. Myself, I pray for their continued wisdom and luck. I'll not fire the lot of them and change all the protocols because a couple of people looked funny running on TV.
It's not explosives that scare the Secret Service, it's a WMD type attack.
Suppose that plane was carrying a pea size sample of radioactive Cesium 137 along with say 10lbs of explosives to disperse it. The WH and the surrounding area could be walled off for 30 years.
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,53110,00.html
If a relatively tiny "dirty bomb" -- one containing only ten pounds of TNT and pea-sized amount of cesium-137 -- were detonated in Washington, federation scientists recently told Congress, "The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately."
"However," the scientists continued, "residents of an area of about five city blocks ... would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer. If decontamination were not possible, these areas would have to be abandoned for decades."
As cesium-137 "cools" from its radioactive to its normal state, the isotope emits gamma radiation, waves of ultra-high electromagnetic energy. These rays, while not as toxic as the heavier, alpha particle emitted by uranium, travel further, and are extremely difficult to contain. Only concrete, steel or lead can keep gamma radiation in check.
What's worse, cesium is the most "reactive" metal there is -- in nature, cesium's always found combined with another element. So the isotope becomes easily attached to roofing materials, concrete, and soil, said Fritz Steinhausler, who led the International Atomic Energy Agency's environmental assessment of the disaster at Chernobyl.
"The Russians tried to clean it up for years, and they eventually gave up. It just wasn't economically viable," said Steinhausler, who's currently a physics professor and visiting scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Most of us have a FAR higher chance of getting cancer, tomorrow, than that.
"A semi-truck, or even an SUV both would be able to carry myuch more of that bad stuff, and to disperse it equally well -- or better. Get some common sense."
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. A ground vehicle would disperse either an explosion or chemical agents far worse than an aircraft, regardless of scale. The one's lacking common sense on this thread are you and anyone who agrees with you. I am definitely glad you are not in charge of my security.
Maybe so, but face it, if the scenario I described happened, NOONE would be in the WH for years. It would have to be literally removed and replaced. As might dozens of other nearby buildings. Not to mention the panic across the nation and damage to the economy. Of course, the WH and DC is mainly a symbolic target.Yet symbolism seems to be important to the Islamofascists.
If terrorists really want to do damage they don't need a plane. A suicide bomber would walk into Grand Central, or Times Square and contaminate the most expensive Real Estate in the US.
Of course they can. So live the best you can.
Most airplanes that fly at 100 knots are either Cessna 150s or some form of comparably light aircraft.
Our Government is predicated on the idea that no man is divine or irreplaceable.
Great article! Thank you for posting it.
The author is a man after my own heart.
Except for one thing: It should have been shot down.
Fool? Um, the only thing that a 150 has in common with a 767 is that it flies better than a Camaro.
And it has been proven that a 767 DOES, in fact, a warplane make.
Every anthrax scare since 911 is the height of fantasy and paranoia.
Let's say, for a moment, that it WAS filled with anthrax. What would have been the proper response, and what would have happened to the anthrax if that had been the response.
I worry about anthrax even LESS than I worry about getting struck by lightning. It is not a WMD and not very effective, relative to the cost and risk of doing any real damage. Has the number of people killed in anthrax attacks in the us since 911 hit double digits yet? And of those who were killed, how many were under 60?
Beckwith, my friend, your argument proves too much. Today, yes today, you or anyone else can drive any vehicle within 100 yards of the White House and disperse much more c-4, a heavier dirty bomb, much more biological agents, and much more chemical agents than can a measly little Cessna 150. No one is going to ask you to identify yourself on the radio and no one is going to check the contents of your vehicle.
The pilots made a dumb mistake. NORAD realized that it was probably just that. The F-16 pilots didn't overreact. The point of the article and my commentary is that the entire bureaucracy, news media, and the manipulable, gullible folks swayed by the official PARANOIA who see danger in every little airplane need to wise up. We may be at war with terrorists, but unless there are other indicia of a genuine threat, there is no need to by paranoid. Cautious yes, paranoid no.
SUICIDE BOMBER!
An aircraft can get past barriers that a truck cannot. A truck cannot drive through the whitehouse door. A plane can.
It doesn't even have to be a bomb. It can be a pilot and 200 pounds of C4. 200 pounds of C4 would make a BIG explosion.
Why bother with a cesna. How close can a car or truck get. Heck, a YUGO can carry more weight than a cesna 150, and get plenty close enough to do anything the cesna could. And it would not be detected until it was already attempting to get on the grounds.
Sheesh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.