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.
If the plane was a crop duster that's a different story, perhaps. It wasn't. Even then -- a ground vehicle by not being noticed while releasing it's slow-acting agents -- can be much more effective. It can get closer to crowds.
Air releases are not that effective -- the evil Iraqis who sprayed the Kurds had to make many passes -- the stuff blows away from the targets too easily.
The Germans in WWI has similar problems with ground releases -- the wind changes and the chlorine and mustard gases was back on top of them. Proximity and confined spaces are ideals for chemical and biological weapons. Airborne is not the way.
We were secured by folks like you, and still are, eh? Exmine every grandmother up the waz at airports, but keep the borders open. I'm not happy at all that folks with that rare combination of hubris and chicken-little-ism still run too much of domestic security. Bureacratic inertia and grinding procedureal indignities punctuated by knee-jerk panic.
"A Cessna 150 waould make a dangerous warplane indeed ."
And so would a Chevy Malibu, and without suspicion until the last ten seconds. and with three times the payload.
Then again, how about a Chevy Suburban?
I believe it would have been shot down before it got that close. So I am saying that any serious threat would be by something that does not have to get that close, in which case, a yugo - or a suburban if you want to carry more and get a little closer, would be just fine for the job.
BTW, I thought you were HOT when I was in Jr. High!
???
Purchase of transit is an indication of voluntary travel, not of being kidnapped.
It'll be interesting to read the legal theory used to fine Wilbanks. It took the Wisconsin DA 12 days to bring charges against Seiler. I think the Wilbanks case is weak, and that is why it's taking so long to reach a charge.
"In other words, get everyone hyperventilating and running around like idiots over a small airplane, dashing into the subways and tunnels of D.C. and then ...."
By the way. Do the people in charge call this a plan of some kind, this running and hyperventilating?
It looked like a Godzilla drill.
The comment was made in the context of her suddenly deciding to leave. But when someone goes on a bus trip, they also usually take keys and a wallet and other such things. She didn't.
Thanks for the Hottie comment! LOL! Don't underestimate the threat of a Cessna. Terrorists will use the tools that they have available to their biggest advantage and they will probe our weeknesses to learn how to use them even more effectively (from their perspective).
Oh, I definitely think this plane should have been shot down.
But I don't think the risk is as great as people think. Needless to say, it was proven not to be in this case.
In my building, a few months after 911, someone spilles powdered sugar off a donut onto the carpet. The building was evacuated and fire, police, and hazard waste people were called in. It was beyond stupid.
In fact, the next day there was a memo circulated around the building asking people to please be understanding of the person who called it in.
If I had been standing next to the person when they saw it, I'd have stuck my finger in it and tried a taste.
All that said, the plane should have been shot down. We are at war and some "mistakes" are gonna cost ya.
"Oh really?"
Yes, really.
"Air releases are not that effective -- the evil Iraqis who sprayed the Kurds had to make many passes -- the stuff blows away from the targets too easily."
So let me get this straight, as your example for the ineffectiveness of aerial chemical weapons disbursement, you use one of the largest mass murders with chemical weapons in history. You were talking about common sense...
If you think that a Cessna flying toward the white house 13 miles inside a 16 mile radius no-fly zone poses no danger, then you're a bleeping idiot. Oh, wait, you probably don't like to be on the receiving end of the arrogant name-calling you have peppered this thread with.
You said "planned ahead" in your first comment, not "suddenly deciding."
Anyway, I was just being nitpicky. The sentence (I made my first comment on) didn't make sense. Hence my "???"
I agree that there were indications consistent with involuntary disappearance. There were also indications of planned, voluntary disappearance.
There are lots of disappearance cases. Over 800,000 reported per year. Some funny stories can be found with some simple google searches. A few of the Wilbanks threads have story summaries and links. And now, we return the thread to its intended subject ...
Now, the Cessna pilot had ignored the flares then I think they would be justified in blowing him out of the sky or ramming into him. (Which ever comes first).
'A slow low flying aircraft with a good pilot has a better change of evading a missile because he can make rapid turns. (small radius)'
Approach turn stall. If they were going to shootdown the plane, they would likely gun it.
'At slow speed and low altitude heat-seeking missiles would be more likely to take out a UPS truck than a Cessna'
No, the missile would just break lock and go stupid. More likely you would never get tone.
And I haven't called any names on this thread. I've described behaviours accurately, and perhaps you have confused such descriptions with name calling. One name only "Beltway whiners", do I admit to. If I missed others, sorry.
Wonder what our genius Luke (who BTW, seems to have disappeared) would have to opine about the [probable] results of a Cessna loaded with 1500 lbs of Semtex traveling at the rate of speed of (oh, say maybe 150 knots in a sharp dive) and impacting a building? Might make for a pretty big bang?
FYI, I have been working this morning. Also, FYI, any single engine Cessna loaded with 1500 pounds of anything could not get off the runway. Much less fly.
On the other hand, folks on this thread are correct that a Cessna 150 loaded with a bio weapon or dirty nuke could cause serious damage. The problem is one of perspective. Much more explosive/biological agents could be carried within throwing distance from the WH and the Capital by any van, pickup truck or SUV. The apparent answer from this thread is that the plane isn't supposed to by there and cars and trucks are. Which is the precise reason why cars and trucks make better attack vehicles and why the errant Cessna was likely not a threat. Moreover, with the F-16 hot on its trail...it was about to be a million little pieces.
Personally I think it was one of most ironic and sadly funny things I have ever seen. All the billions upon billions of dollars wasted on Homeland Security and the War on Some Terror to make us all 'feel' safe and it's brought crashing down by a wandering Cessna. Think we can get that money back to the citizens of the respective states?
Maybe they could just down him with turbulence. 8^>
I agree that maybe I was a bit trigger happy on this. Ignored flares would probably most definitely have resulted in a splash.
Here's the link re: the actual wording of the restricted airspace over DC. AOPA DC NOTAM
I bet they are pilots no more. If it was all "innocent" then they are too stupid to remain pilots. It could have been more sinister -- they simply could have been on a mission to "test the waters."
Paranoia. Yeah, right. Even after after 3000 people died horrible deaths on Sept. 11, 2001, some FOOLS refuse to take terrorism and our efforts to prevent it seriously.
If this article represents the "views of many of us in the aerospace industry", then SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!
Mr. Republican...see my comments toward the end of Post 155. Here are a few more thoughts. The lax security problem is that we live in a free society. People drive on the roads, and yes...even right next to the White House. Its not quite as close as once allowed, but it is within throwing distance, and certainly within range for dirty nukes, and bio weapons. Since we live in such a society, and we allow travel to and around national icons, going ape over a tiny little airplane that strays is ridiculous.
Now Mayor Daley wants to bar all small planes from flying over all small cities. Talk about Paranoid. He should first prohibit all cars and trucks driving in Chicago!!
By the way, FOOLS are people who strain at gnats and swallow camels: the Cessna 150 was a prototypical gnat. As for the aerospace industry, most pilots value our right to travel. And some of us are working hard to make air travel feasible for the average person, i.e. personal air travel.
I was flying with my brother in his Cessna Citation on our way to Cabo and the lcd screen in the instrument panel showed the boundaries of these areas extremely clearly. Coupled to gps and a picture of our plane over the map there is no way we could encroach more than a few feet into the no-fly areas unless we suddenly went blind. the autopilot was even programmed to go around them.
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.