TSA & GA (Revised)

TSA is making a move to expand into small general aviation airports in addition to those with airline service.  The justification for this expansion of government is the cover-all excuse of national security due to the 'ever present' terrorist threat.  This justification does not hold up against the reality of the situation specially given the expense.    Before I get into that, let us examine certain measurable facts.

1. In order for an aircraft to be used as a terror weapon it must have sufficient destructive potential to represent a credible threat.  Light aircraft (specified as weighing less than 12,500 pounds) generally do not meet that criteria.  The argument that smaller aircraft laden with explosives represent a potential threat loses credibility when examined closely.

2. The light aircraft and small jets which make up this new found concern can be operated from any open field or piece of straight road.

3. There are simply better and easier ways to carry out an act of terror.

Now let us look at some of the issues in play and try to sort out what the real 'terror landscape' looks like.  No emotion or hyperbole a candid assesment of the issues as I see them.

The Threat

The truck bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building shows that domestic terrorism is a real threat.  It also points out why small aircraft are not practical.  Their only advantage is the ability to avoid ground obstacles.  Their limited payload (including onboard fuel) would be too small to have carried out such an attack.   This has been proven in numerous aviation mishaps involving light aircraft.

Existing Obstacles to the Threat

Aircraft represent other hurdles for potential terrorists. The need for extensive training, the ability to recruit a suicidal pilot, the ability to obtain commercially made explosives or manufacture their equivalent and the ability to carry the plan out undetected. Let us take a closer look at these.

Training:

Pilot training is an expensive and time consuming effort.  In the wake of 9/11, after learning that the pilots never bothered to learn how to take off or land, flying schools have become much more alert.  They keep a keen eye out for students who have "odd tendencies".  This form of human intelligence is the best first line of defense.

Suicidal pilot recruitment:

This part is an opinion based largely on my personal experiences and on what I have read.  Of the 9/11 terrorists, only the eight central terrorists (the ones actually flying the planes) knew the real plan.  The others did not know they were on a suicide mission.  Had they known they likely would have opted out or stopped it.  This has been pointed in out in numerous articles.  According to an issue of the British newspaper 'The Guardian' dated October of 2001 the following facts are not in question: 

1. FBI investigators officially concluded that 11 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the aircraft on 11 September did not know they were on a suicide mission.

2. Unlike the eight 'lead' attackers, who were the ones who learned to fly, the other 11 did not leave messages for friends or family indicating they knew their fate. None of them had copies of the prayer and contemplation instructions (for 'opening your chest to God' at the moment of immolation) which FBI agents discovered in the effects of Mohamed Atta (the group's leader and pilot of the first plane).

3. The FBI found evidence suggesting the 11 men expected to take part in 'conventional' hijackings (complete with taking the planes flown to far away airports and ransoming the hostages for political demands: probably the freeing of fellow terrorists such as the ones who committed the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993).

4.  The 11 men's personal effects suggested they had been preparing themselves for incarceration.  These 11 were simply the muscle for the operation

5. Atta's final instructions, with their pleas for divine forgiveness, indicate that even the most fanatical fundamentalist had to make considerable psychological preparations before setting off to die.  Selecting those ready to die on such a mission would not have been easy but keeping the majority of the hijackers in the dark as to the plan greatly reduced the problem.

Flying is not natural to humans and most non-pilots find little joy in it.  It requires the overcoming of innate fears. Even if someone can be recruited, as noted above, it takes extensive conditioning to make then overcome these fears (as well as the fear of death itself) in order to carry out the mission.  Such a person would likely 'set off alarms' as described in training section and if they did receive training would still have considerable mental hurdles to overcome before actually carrying out the act. They would have until just before impact to back out.   The ground or building filling up their windshield would be very likely to induce some serious reconsiderations.  Before anyone mentions the Kamikaze pilots, one must remember that they often had their feet wired to the rudder pedals and their canopies bolted shut.  They had also been conditioned from childhood to be willing to die for the Emperor.  They were not only promised paradise but were told that dying is 'lighter than a feather'.  There was also incredible peer pressure as failing to die was a huge loss of face.  This cannot be overstated in the honor rich Japanese culture and psyche.  Also, last minute "chicken outs" would explain why so many of them missed targets as big as aircraft carriers.  This said, it is by no means impossible to find and train potential suicide pilots but it would be easier to teach them to drive a truck into a building.

Obtaining explosives:

The Oklahoma bombers used a truck because of the payload requirement.  Given that the improvised explosives used exceeded both the volume and weight that a small plane (say a lear jet) could carry, a truck was the only viable option.  I re-iterate, a small plane simply is not able to carry such a payload given it's weight and physical size.  A potent bomb of smaller size could be used but that would require the obtaining of professionally made explosives.  Whereas not impossible, it would immediately complicate matters and raise the risk of detection.  A foreign power could provide them but such direct and likely traceable forgein state support is unlikely as that is an overt act of war. 

Implementation:

Assuming all of the above challenges had been met, the perpetrators would then have to carry out the plan undetected.  This would require the use of an essentially abandoned airport which would in turn mean it is farther from the target.  If it were to be done closer to the target it would require that no one at the airport notice of their activities. Airports, especially small ones, have a strong communal tendency.  That's a nice way of saying nosey neighbors.  Very little goes unnoticed and in the post 9/11 environment suspicions are easily roused. This goes back to the value of human intelligence.

In the event that all of the above were successfully accomplished the likelihood that the presence of card swipes, fences or even the physical presence of TSA personnel would make any difference is reduced to a very low order of probability.

The Economic Impact

General aviation is a small but vibrant part of the national economy.  Aircraft sales, maintenance, instruction, hangar rentals & tie down fees, fueling as well as airport construction and maintenance account for billions of dollars each year.  If TSA becomes a permanent part of the General Aviation picture it will almost assuredly destroy the very social nature of small airports.  Its intrusive ways will dissuade their use and erect yet one more barrier to those who wish to engage in this rich national resource.

This will reduce the revenues generated and cause the failure of many smaller operations while raising costs to an already overburdened federal budget.  The manpower requirements alone for such an overreaching federal plan are enough to bankrupt smaller facilities.  Unfunded mandates to small commercial operators and private owners will only serve to further alienate a traditionally patriotic segment of the population from its government.  In short, many of these small airports will close.  Not only will it have an economic impact, but it will also create a void in security.  The facilities that are not converted to other uses will not likely be guarded or even watched.  That would make them the devil's playground.  In other words, a terrorist could now use an abandoned facility unobserved and unmolested.  You could tear up the very expensive runways and taxiways but they would only relocate to abandoned fields or stretchs of highway.  Simply stated, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Recommendations

In order to help streamline the process and save the government and the flying community from unnecessary conflict over this non-issue I offer the following recommendations.  Any airport that does not have scheduled airline service and meets any of the following criteria should be automatically exempted from consideration for TSA control:

·         The longest runway is less than 4,000 feet.

·         It is more than 50 miles from any major city with a population of over 1,000,000.

·         It is more than 30 miles from the nation's capital.

·         It does not routinely base or handle aircraft over 12,500 pounds gross takeoff weight (does not include transient aircraft).

·         All other airports who do not wish to have TSA may opt to apply for a case by case exemption.

·         Any airport that is required to have TSA security will retain the option to hire private security at TSA expense (up to the cost of TSA).

·         Any airport may voluntarily request TSA.

Conclusion:

If the TSA is successful is obtaining authority at small airports, the subsequent expense and commercial impact will cause the failure of many airports.  The expansion of government into yet another facet of American life (and a true part of traditional Americana) will be yet another victory for those who wish us ill.  The almost maniacal pursuit of potential threats, both real and imaginary, will come at great expense to our economy, our freedoms and our national heritage.

Could a small airport be successfully used as a staging area for an aerial terrorist attack? Yes.  As noted so can any piece of straight road that can be used a runway (as proven by the Swedish Air Force and countless drug traffickers).  So can any truck be used as a bomb carrier, any piece of rail as a train derailment site or any ship as a floating bomb (reference the Texas City explosion on April 16, 1947).  The difference is that small airports and small planes require the most training for the smallest return of any of these ergo the security resources would be better used elsewhere.

The New Airport Massage Security System

And we're off:  This is my bailiwick as I am an airline pilot and my best friend is the head of access control at a major airport.  We have had some animated discussions about this.  Before I get in to guts of this thing I want emphasize that I am not taking a side but simply reporting some facts.  I'll get into my opinion in the section called 'my opinion'. This first part could be called: What most folks do not know:

First of all there is no 4th amendment issue.  Airports are government property just like military bases and, although unbeknownst to most people, you consent to search of your vehicle and person by merely driving onto airport property,  This is settled law that had been through the judicial ringer repeatedly.  The courts have ruled that you have entered voluntarily and have given tacit consent.

The sterile area definitely has no privacy expectations thereby rendering the 4th amendment moot.

The searches are same-sex only and private screenings are supposed to be available but you must request them.

The inconsistency in airport security requirements is due to each airport manager having considerable options in deciding what he wants done at his/her airport.

Most people also do not know that once you enter the security queue you are required by regulation to complete it.  Backing out once you get to the head of the line is not allowed HOWEVER TSA personnel have NO DETENTION AUTHORITY.  They can call the cops but they themselves have zero authority to detain you.  They are not law enforcement officers, they are 'federal employees', not cops.

There is something called Crew Pass that would allow crews to circumvent security but it cost money and the airlines have largely rejected it claiming costs but the reality is that it is a chip in their bag to use at employee contract negotiations.

At most airports bag handlers do not go through security.  Go figure, the college educated, highly trained, thoroughly background checked pilots with everything to live for, get the pat down but the $9 per hour bag smasher hired off of the street can slip through the bag room unchecked.

The Backscatter X-Ray supposedly has less radiation than you get looking out the window at 30,000 feet.  Dunno if I believe that but that's the official line. The face is blurred and no record of the image is kept unless something is found.

WHY?

THE X-ray catches stuff that will get past a metal detector (ceramic weapons & contraband). One of the things it has been good at catching is smuggled narcotics.  Certain animals as well (and yes there was a snake being trafficked  under a shirt; relax, it was just a Boa Constrictor).

OPINION:

Until everyone goes through security it is just a dog and pony show to make people feel better.  Contrary to the myth flying on an airliner is not a right but a privilege and it is one that is easily revoked. Since anyone can be corrupted and we can never know what truly lurks in the people's minds, even law enforcement and airport senior staff should not be exceptions. The airport policeman might be going through a bad divorce or be a deep seeded Al-Qaeda operative and be planning to plant a bomb on a plane.

In the mean time, since my sole personal income is derived from flying the plane I am stuck so I will either take my irradiation like a man or enjoy the airport personal massage and spa treatment.  My personal plan is to complain that my pat-downer lacked both enthusiasm and passion.  If they are really thorough we can go out and have a cigarette together afterwards.  Unless the public really stands up to this or quits flying (they will do neither) it is here to stay.  Did I mention I get gassy when I am tickled?  And I am VERY ticklish. 

Regardless there is no doubt about the loss of dignity in commercial aviation. Nowhere was this better summed up than in the episode of the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob (voiced by Kelsy Grammar) steals the Wright Flyer to make good an escape while making the following quote to Bart as they fly away: "Ah for the days when aviation was a gentleman's pursuit.  Back before every Joe sweat sock could wedge himself behind a lunch tray and Jet off to Raleigh-Durham".

The Future is Upon Us and I Was Wrong about It

For those who have been to busy with life to take notice there has been a modest yet significant milestone in history recently.  Burt Rutan and company did the first glide test of the Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic commercial suborbital spacecraft. 

At first I quasi-ignored it until I saw the footage of it take off and land. I was still smarting from the President's cancellation of NASA'a Constellation program.  But then I watched the attached four minute Youtube video of the event and I realized something about the Virgin Galactic vehicle.  It hit me just how much it looked like the 'futuristic' space vehicles of 1950s-1990s science fiction.  It really is a sight to behold.  Even the takeoff in that purposed built mother ship looked like an episode of Thunderbirds or UFO or Buck Rogers.  For those who recall Walt Disney's Man in Space episode the landing is eerily similar. ( I have attached that Youtube video as well; the landing scene is at the 3:30 minute point).

Not long ago I did a post that blasted the administration for canning the Constellation program and effectively leaving us without a domestic manned space flight ability.  While I still feel it is a mistake to deny ourselves local access to manned lift, I have since come to learn that the Constellation program had way to many issues and was not the right path.  That aside I also made the following commentary:

But my real sense of loss is for the young stargazers.  I grew up in the era of Apollo and watched the moon walks on TV.  Later generations had the Shuttle (STS) to hang their collective nation pride on.  Many of us pursued aerospace careers with fantasies about being astronauts fueling our dreams.  Kids growing up now will have no such kindling to fire their imaginations.  Without a new crop of 'space cadets', America will likely lose her grand place as a true space faring nation.  It could not happen at a worse time.  With regional hegemons like China just getting their programs ramped up and Russia selling seats to anyone who needs lift, we have picked a curious time to just 'up and surrender' the lead.

But when I see that ship glide in from an azure blue sky and lightly touchdown on a runway, kissing the ground with the grace of a ballerina and throwing nothing away in the process; when I see grown men in macho flight suits hop out with smiles on their faces that would shame a kid on Christmas morning, pearly white grins that could blind a Gila Monster, I realize something important.  I was wrong.  I was looking backwards. I am so in love with the dream that NASA promised but was never able to fulfill, the dream of space exploration and the common man in space.

I also compare the swan like arrival of this painfully sexy ship to the ungainly flop of the parachuteborne capsules.  I finally get it.  The future is not the return to throw away rockets.  That is what the Russians do (and do well) but it is not the future, it is making do with relics of the past.  The future is touching down on a New Mexico runway and saying "Here I am, come and get me".

I realize this is a puddle jump compared to NASA's accomplishments but with the government focused on more earthly issues this is very likely the future of manned spaceflight in America (and it really is a beautiful ship ta'boot).  We are back at a doorstep we were at 50 years ago and this tme without the political pressures to make the impossible possible and to drag tomorrow into today.  This time we can proceed at an economically viable pace.  Now that is something today's young stargazers and space cadets can get excited about.  They can get a historical 'do over' with the experience and 20-20 hindsight and half of a century of experience.  Combine that with modern technology and the natural human desire to peek over the next horizon and the sky in NOT the limit.

I am pretty sure Burt Rutan will be to civilian space flight what Werner Von Braun was to NASA.

This video is 4 minutes long and I encourage you to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjDhE_65_Fo&feature=sub

Then compare it to this Disney episode!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVD11FE3oQ&feature=related

"To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult.".......Plutarch

Different Issues for Different Pilot Groups

There are different issues for different kinds of flying.  I have a few basic observations here about the habits various pilot groups.

Private pilots:
Make excuses to wife why flying there is a better idea (on smooth days only).
Start an excuse start with 'It wouldn't be safe'.
Call every FBO enroute to get prices on avgas.
Attend FAA seminars and ask about their mistakes by saying 'I heard about a guy....'
Tell friends how they can fly them there for 'gas money'.
Tell stories of their misdeeds with the opening 'I heard about a guy....'
Wear WW2 bomber jackets and look very cool in sunglasses.

Corporate pilots:
Look very cool in sunglasses.
Always blame ATC.
Keep the plane spotlessly clean.
Pack a Speedo.
Check their hair in mirror.
Look very cool in sunglasses.

Airline pilots:
Make sure their tie is straight and shirt is tucked in.
Never piss off the flight attendant who makes their coffee.
Take the smoothest altitude as there are often fragile old people in the back.
Ask for PIREPs because one report is worth 1,000 forecasts.
Take Febreeze since they plan to use the same uniform on a 4 day trip,
Shave the night before because nothing hurts their image like paper bits on their face.
Put 5% of their pay in furlough fund.
Look very cool in sunglasses.

US Army Pilots: 
Fly below 50 feet and near obstacles.
Locate dangerous areas.
Deploy troops or kill bad guys in dangerous areas.
Curse bitterly when bad guys shoot at their expensive helicopter.
Flyout on a different route wearing a flak vest but no parachute.
Look very cool in sunglasses.

US Air Force Rules: 
Look very cool in sunglasses while having a cocktail.
Adjust temperature on the air-conditioner at the Hilton or Marriott.
See what's on HBO (hopefully Top Gun).
Ask 'What is a dogfight?'
Request more funding from Congress with a 'killer' Power Point presentation.
Wine & dine ''key' Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry executives.
Hurry to make 13:45 tee-time.
Make sure the base is as far as possible from the conflict but close enough to have tax exemption.
Use a pilot in New Mexico, flying a drone 10,000 miles away over Iraq, to drop bombs on bad guys 200 yards from the Army.
Look very cool in sunglasses.


US Navy Pilots: 
Go to Sea.
Drink Coffee.
Fly MIGCAP while deploying the Marines.
Bomb bad guys who get close to Marines.
Trap on carrier then drink coffee
Watch 'Top Gun'.
Lament the retirement of the F-14.
Watch 'Top Gun' again.
Look very cool in sunglasses while drinking more coffee.

Marine Pilots:
Bomb bad guys who get even closer to Marines.
Steal spare parts from the Navy.
Work out.
Rag on Navy for thier 'purdy white uniforms'.
Work out again.
Cheer the retirement of the F-14.
Work out more while Looking very cool in sunglasses. 

Coast Guard pilots:
Go out in weather that got others in trouble.
Find those others in trouble and fish them out.
Try to find their way back to land while looking very cool in sunglasses.

Ag Pilots (Crop Dusters):
Apply chemicals on what is hopefully the right field
Try not to hit anything.
Look very cool in sunglasses while sweating through their clothes.

CFIs (instructor pilots):
Cannot afford sunglasses

Student Pilots:
Are prohibited from wearing sunglasses or even trying to look cool until successful completion of checkride.

All Quiet on the Eastern Front!

I flew four revenue airline legs full of passengers on 9-11-10, one of them into New York (actually it was White Plains-Westchester county about 20 miles northwest of the city, but it is New York!).  Yes, the mighty Nine-Eleven did not even slow down business in the aviation trade. In fact it was quite brisk.

What does this tell us? That Americans are resilient, hard to scare and dare I actually say.....going on with their lives without these terrorist cretans in the front of our minds?  Yeah, pretty much. America has done a fair job of putting the islamo-fascists on their heels.  It is a might harder to export terror when you are afraid to come out of your cave for fear of a Predator drone 'lighting you up'. It also helps that any moron who jumps up with a box opener or tries to breach the cockpit door is likely to get his head handed to him (I am not being metaphorical here).

All in all, it was a quiet day on the east coast of America.  Good weather prevailed and I even had a cordial chat with the Cuban air traffic controllers on the Cancun round trip out of Ft. Lauderdale (it takes us through Cuban airspace over the Gulf of Mexico).  In fact three of my four flights were international.  Nassau - Ft. Lauderdale - Cancun - Ft. Lauderdale - White Plains, NY or in airline parlance:

NAS-FLL, FLL-CUN, CUN-FLL, FLL-HPN.

The next morning we had the Oh-dark-thirty departure. The sun was just cresting the horizon as we taxied out and I was able to get a beautiful shot of the sunrise over Jamaica Bay and JFK as we climbed out towards Orlando. 

New York City was still alseep this early on a Sunday morning. Sleeping safe and sound under the blanket of security provided by countless people both in and out of uniform.  Sharp, dedicated people who stay alert and stand ready to what deeds may be required of them in the name of a common cause. Freedom.  Thanks to them, and all who support them, it was all quiet on the eastern front.

The Baltimore Whore

The Martin B-26 Marauder was a built by the Glenn L. Martin Company (now Martin-Marietta). Due to the early models' small wings, the Marauder had to be flown by exact airspeeds, particularly on final approach and when one engine was out. The 150mph speed on short final was intimidating to pilots of the era. Until crews were re-trained and aerodynamic modifications were made (primarily an increase of wing span and a larger fin and rudder) it earned some very colorful nicknames;: "Widowmaker", "The Flying Coffin" and perhaps its best known "The Flying Prostitute" (so-named because it had "no visible means of support," referring to its small wings). The "Baltimore Whore" (a reference to where it was built) was another beauty.

The first B-26 was flown in November of 1940. Deliveries to the U.S. Army Air Corps began in February, 1941. The B-26 was a fast aircraft with better performance than the contemporary medium bombers but its relatively small wing area resulted in its unprecedented landing speed. The B-26s suffered hard landings and damaged landing gears, engine mounts, props and even fuselage damage. Improper weight distribution was a problem as well. The 'short coupled bomber was very particular about weight and balance. But a weak strut lock system was also to blame for the landing gear failures.

Another Bug-a-boo was the Curtiss electric prop. If it failed the prop would stick in its current pitch and the engine could over speed it for that setting. A blade disintegration could result.

The B-26 was not an aircraft for novices but due to the wartime need to train many pilots quickly, a number of relatively inexperienced pilots got into the cockpit and the accident rate increased accordingly.

By 1942, pilots in training believed that the Marauder could not be flown single-engine, especially during take-off,  but this was disproved by experienced pilots (One of whom was none other than Jimmy Doolittle). Regardless, the regularity of crashes by pilots training in Tampa at McDill Field (as much as one every other day for a while) led to the catchphrase, "One a day in Tampa Bay". Over a dozen B-26s ditched in Tampa Bay in less than a year and a half (this number does not reflect over land losses).

FLAK BAIT at the NASM

There was a pay-off however. The B-26 is said to have had the lowest combat loss rate of any U.S. aircraft used during the war.   In fact, the record of missions flown by a U.S. bomber is held by a B-26 named (ironically), FLAK BAIT!  The forward section of this aircraft currently resides in the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.

Nevertheless, it remained a challenging aircraft to fly and continued to be unpopular with some pilots throughout its military career. By the end of World War II, it had flown more than 100,000 sorties and had been used by British, French and South African forces in addition to U.S. units. When B-26 production halted in 1945 over 5,200 had been built.

A wonderfully restored training film on the B-26 is available on Youtube at the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIsoj1QPAc&feature=channel

Now What?

With no manned space program,
what will future space kids in
America look to for inspiration?

With President Obama's effective death sentence on any future American manned space launch platform I, like many others, am given to wonder abouth the future of Americans in space.  Are we to be paying passengers of Russia's Energia company for the remaining life of the ISS (international space station)?

Although I do fear a loss in the technological edge for America I also see this as a narrow opportunity.  Currently there are several private companies funding low cost spaceflight.  Space X's Falcon rocket, Virgin Galactic's suborbital tour ship and Armadillo Aerospace are showing progress as long as the money keeps flowing but only one of these is a truly American project.  Others are in the works but these three seem to be leading the pack.

But my real sense of loss is for the young stargazers.  I grew up in the era of Apollo and watched the moon walks on TV.  Later generations had the Shuttle (STS) to hang their collective nation pride on.  Many of us pursued aerospace careers with fantasies about being astronauts fueling our dreams.  Kids growing up now will have no such kindling to fire their imaginations.  Without a new crop 'space cadets', America will likely loose her grand place as a true spacefaring nation.  It could not happen at a worse time.  With regional hegemons like China just getting their programs ramped up and Russia selling seats to anyuone who needs lift, we have picked a curious time to just 'up and surrender' the lead.

As Vice -president Johnson once lamented, we may yet go to sleep by the light of a communist moon. All the 'been there, done that' bravado will not mean squat when China and Russia are busy dominating manned space and all we can do is toss up tourists on a 15 minute suborbital flight in a British owned thrill ride. If we as a nation allow this to happen, we deserve to look at the night sky and feel second rate.

The salvation, if it comes, will be at the hands of private business.  The up side of this is that they will be free of government meddling and will be able to go where they are needed.  The military will rise to whatever threat is presented by foreign dominance in manned space but we will need to make our civilian programs commercially viable.  Lunar exploration for Helium 3 is a personal favorite of mine (Helium 3 is used in clean fusion).  But it will still take truckloads of cash to make it happen.  If American industry has the sack to make it happen, then we may yet realize out rightful place as the world's leader in technology, space faring and clean energy.  It is our place, do you hear me OUR PLACE; OUR'S! We are holding it in our hands as I write this, unless we let it slip away.

The Much Maligned C-133 Cargomaster

In 1956 Douglas Aircraft debuted their new "do-all" transport plane. The C-133 Cargomaster. With its shiny new turbine engines it was a radical departure from the old radial engine C-54s and C-124s. It was big and long and could carry anything from an Atlas missile to artillery pieces. If you could squeeze the door shut, you could fly. All was right with the universe...until.

Looking like a stretched C-130 the plane had what at first seems to be a common cargo plane layout, but that is when looked at with modern eyes. It was the first straight tail plane to have aft clamshell doors that sat low to the ground so that cargo could easily roll on/off. The wings are actually above the fuselage and the main landing gears are in pods on the outside of it making the entire body of the plane a void space (critical for moving the ICBMs of the era). The turbine engines let it fly in pressurized comfort above much of the weather and at much improved speeds. So what was the problem with Douglas's new gem?

Unlike most new planes there was no prototype phase for this plane. There was some test flying but essentially to speed up deliveries the USAF took them right off the drawing board. To get the plane light enough designers used thinner gauge aluminum. The only turbine engine available had to run at a constant speed which meant prop controllers were constantly moving to keep up with power demands. The plane was around less than two years when the first one crashed.

It would later be learned that the plane stalled with no warning, the tail could get blanked out by the airflow. One wing stalled before the other resulting in a violent roll. A simple stall strip solved the problem. Also, it could ice up and stall and in one case (the last crash) the thin aluminum gave up the fight and there was a decompression. Some were lost mid ocean with no ability to research the cause. Metal fatigue, stall and prop/engine failure are the usual suspects.

Despite impressive load hauling abilities, many people were scared to fly in them. The accident rate was higher than the C-130, but the Hercules could not carry the same payloads. The plane was retired in 1971 after 10 of the 50 built had crashed. One continued to operate in Alaska until 2008 and the crew stand by it. It is arguable that a normal prototype phase may have uncovered some of the mysteries that claimed the lives of 61 men.

The Smithsonian Air & Space magazine just published a wonderfully detailed article in the Sept. 2010 issue.

The World's Best Pilot

Ask most pilots who is the world's best pilot and they will look in a miiror and grin. Press the subject and you will often get a list of pilots they respect.  The usual famous names will top the list, Lindberg, Yeager, Crossfield, Von Richtofen, Bong, Gabreski, McConnell, Olds or Rickenbacker.  The occassional astronaut makes the list as well. This is to be expected as these men are all famous names within aviation.  But ask the same question around an airshow crowd and you may get names like Hoover, Loudenslager, Scholl or even Gaffeny or Skelton.  Ask the same question on a duster strip and some may say Vencil or Burnett. Ask around Hollywood and you may hear Mantz, Tallman or Scholl (again).  Ask an old school airline pilot and you may hear Musick, Buck, Haynes or Sullenberger. And of course Jimmy Doolittle could be on any of those lists. So where does that leave us?

The short story is that the world's best pilot is a unicorn.  A mythical beast that has not existed since aviation has had more than one pilot.  Why do I draw this conclusion? Simple.  Every type of aviation has its own set of requirements that are unique to its function.  All pilots are expected to be technically savvy and able to complete the mission. But what does that entail?

For the airline pilot it is mastery of the highest certificate, the ATP, along with certain soft skills such as CRM and fuel management.  Also being able to read the tea leaves and know when to divert or just how much creedence to give an unusual situation.  Primarily it is simply to move the plane on time.  It is an industry that does not really allow a pilot to stand out of the crowd unless the situation becomes critical.  It takes exaclty one bad decision to kill people (KLM/PAN AM crash at Tennerife). The KLM pilot had a flawless record right up until he decided to take off without proper clearance.  That crash is all he will be remembered for.

The military heroes have usually been fighter pilots.  The dashing figure of the lone gunslinger doing mano-y- mano combat dates back to WW1.  The reality is that the best fighter pilot kills his enemy from behind without warning or mercy.  That's the job. The Red Baron and his mentor Oswald Boelcke obeyed this dicta and it worked well for them.  French ace Rene Fonck was known for superior marksmanship.  American ace Frank Luke for reckless aggressiveness.  So is the best pilot the bravest, the quickest on the controls, the smartest or the best shot? And what about those who had those talents but never saw combat?

An all but overlooked group are the ag pilots, crop dusters.  They fly within feet of the ground and countless obstacles in heavily laden planes at low airspeed.  They do this all day long during the seasons. It is as much a test of stamina as it is piloting prowess.

Then there are the airshow performers and Hollywood stunt pilots. The stunts and routines they perform are nothing short of eye popping yet some of them are not even instrument rated.  But every year somebody invents a new manuver and the old show is passe.  Then of course there are the demstration teams that have to do it all in formation.  Which is harder, doing it in an F-16 at high speed or a Stearman with little power reserve?

Then we have carrier pilots. But there are alot of carrier qualified pilots and we are looking for the best pilot.  That means one, numero uno and we have not even talked about helicopter pilots, balloonists, sailplane pilots, flight instructors etc, etc.

So if you have not guessed by now, the greatest pilot is a myth.  You might be able to quantify the greatest fighter pilot by numeric total.   Richtofen and Erich Hartman because they had the most kills of their respective wars, but one must also take into account for the quality of the adversary.  You can talk about the best test pilot by looking at how many planes he successfully tested without loss.  Crossfield and Yeager usually top the list but by Yeager's own admission that is largely due to their being in the right place at the right time. The list goes on but here are my choices.

Best test pilots of all time: The Wright brothers
Best fighter pilot: Canadian Billy Bishop
Best pioneer pilot: Charles Lindbergh
Best race/engineer pilot: Jimmy Doolittle
Best Bomber pilot: Guy Gibb, RAF
Best dive bomber/attack pilot: Hans Ulrich Rudel
Best recon pilot: Unknown due to secrecy
Best cargo pilot: Anyone who survived flying the hump.
Best interceptor pilot: Rex T. Barber (Yamamoto mission)
Best creative pilot in the field: Phil Cochran
Best airline pilot: Robert Buck
Best jet fighter pilot: Joe McConnell
Best Stunt pilot (Hollywood): Paul Mantz
Best lunar/space pilot: Neil Armstrong
Best Airshow pilot: Bob Hoover
Best aerobatic pilot: Art Scholl
Best airship pilot: Hugo Eckener
Best gas balloonist: Joe Kittinger

Best current pilot.......where's my mirror?

Will the CAB return?

There has been some talk around aviation circles that we may see a return to regulated airlines.  The attitudes on this are as varied as any other political or economic topic.  Although the airlines would enjoy a certain stability that does not currently exist I am given to wonder if the re-establishment of governmental controls would be yet another intrusion into free markets.  Many pilots and airline managers alike  have dreams of returning to the grand old days of guarenteed jobs and taxpayer underwritten routes. This ofcourse assumes that the old style of regulation comes back.  I am pretty sure these are pipe dreams.

So what would the new regulated system look like? Who would control it? Where would the money come from? What barriers would it create to new entrants and the free market system?  Answer: Nobody knows, so let's just make a truckload of assumptions and paint a pretty picture of a re-regulated airline industry.

The New Civil Aeronautic Board (CAB)

Manned by political appointees, the make-up of this board will depend largely on who is in office at the time so I will go with the current administration.  There will be a nine member panel made up of three lawyers,  a Keynesian economist, an environmetalist, a former senator and three college professors.  They will capitulate to the whims of senators who are backed by major airlines.  They will use route assignments and slot controls to manipulate traffic patterns in accordance with said influences.  Small towns like Albany and Tallahassee will get big jets and commuter aircraft will serve airports that 'need' service even if they do not merit it.

OR

There may not be a new CAB but an airline Czar.  He can pretty much do as he or she pleases.  Step one would be to freeze all routes and study how well each airline is doing it's job.  Underperformers will lose routes and good performers will get more.  The Airlines will be given 'zones of influence' which are in reality price fixed psuedo monopolies. (Isn't this fun?). When an airline does a good job it can petition to assume more routes.  Uncovered routes (read unwanted and unprofitable) will be the only thing given to new entrants (in the unlikely case there are any).

There is also the soft approach.  Airlines will have minimum prices to prevent fare wares and maximum prices to prevent gouging (caps and collars). New routes will be government approved and based on political need. Over capacity will not be a problem as, like Islamic Terrorist, it will be removed from the official government vernacular . The new phrase will be 'market enrichment'.  Essential Air Service contracts, now called route balancing, will be dangled in front of carriers as guarenteed money to serve losing markets (now called fiscally retrograded markets). Routes will be awarded based in no small part on what aircraft type the carrier plans to use.  A 757 will get preference over a much smaller DC-9. But this will be offered as incentive, not as a mandate.  It is a softer glove over the iron fist of government. Mergers will be allowed only if the DOJ and the Office of the Airline Czar see it will make congress happy.

This will insure the stability of the airlines even if the route structure looks like some gerrymandered political district. There is one teensy little fly in the oinment.  If the government ever actually gets called on its debt it will have to let go of its subsidies and the airlines will be back to square one wondering how to make a profit in the real world. The resulting strikes, layoffs, bankruptcies and mergers will at least give residents near the airport a pleasant break from the constant noise of airplanes coming and going.

So you wanna start an airline

There is an old axiom in the flying biz that if you want to make a small fortune in aviation start with a big one.  This is an industry that is second to none in unexpected disruptions.  It is an attempt to run a very complex system full of literally moving parts while dealing with the vagueries of weather, human behavior and mechanical complexity.  The list of outside forces that can effect profitability seems to grow each year.  Fuels costs, terrorism, economic down turns and labor disputes are just a few.  This assumes that you have already navigated the byzantine system required to obtain certification.

If by some chance you have a few million dollars in your pocket and you want to try and start an airline here are a few point s to consider.

1. The FAA and DOT will require economic fitness.  That means you're gonna need alot of cash up front, preferably someone else's.
2. You will be entering one of the most heavily regulated industries that exists.
3. Virtually every employee will require very expensive training.
4. You will have (amongst others) the following fixed expenses: leases on aircraft, gates and offices, insurance, payroll and benefits.
5. You will have as a minimum the following variable expenses: Fuel, landing fees, overtime, maintenance and reservations fees.
6. You will have one source of income; fares.

It takes exactly one empty flight to wipe out the profits from three full flights. The government is there to enforce rules, not concern themselves with your problems. The employees expect to be paid promptly as do the vendors and lessors.

It is possible to lose money on full flights.  If fuel goes up a nickle a gallon that is $50 a flight hour which equals $500 a day or $15,000 per month per plane for a 737-200.

If you do start an airline here is some advice:

1. Use as much of other people's money as you can (OPM).
2. However much you think you will need, triple it.
3. DO NOT try to save money by partnering with a lawyer, accountant, mechanic or pilot in return for 'free' services.  Hire them and pay the proper rate.
4. Be courteous to the FAA but not nice.
5. If things get tight, make payroll first
6. If a market does not pan out, drop it
7. ADVERTISE, unlike you the rest of the world does not hang out at the airport and has no idea who your airline is or where it goes.
8. Two things fuel this industry, ego and money.  Make sure you have plenty of money.
9. A cancellation costs the fraction of a violation or an accident. Don't push it.

Many airlines have started with various degrees of success but just to give you a little perspective go ahead and check out this Youtube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97bsp7pzz8

Good luck!

Propwash's rules for aviators

A few pearls of wisdom from your Uncle Propwash.

If it leaks check it out, unless it is a radial.  If it is a radial engine and does not leak, it is empty. Do you hear me, I am not kidding.

Any airplane can kill you including a model airplane.  No joke.

If you decide to go 'head to head' with a thunderstorm you richly deserve whatever happens.

If the magneto check is bad, the mag is bad.  At best something is wrong.  That goes for the rest of the checklist as well. Don't fly it, fix it!

Mechanics charge alot of money for the same reason doctors do; they know if you have any brains you'll gladly pay out the nose to save your ass.

Do not take off in weather you cannot land in.

The only time you have too much gas is when you are on fire or cannot clear the trees at the end of the runway.

No pilot should ever leave the traffic pattern without $100 and a major credit card. Trust me on this one.

Airplanes fly on airspeed.  Airspeed is produced by the sacrifice of either altitude or money.

If you fly less than 100 hours a year, you should rent; at 100-200 hours a year you should partner; at 300 hours a or more per year it doesn't matter because money is obviously no object for you ya lucky bastard.

No pump system on Earth beats a gravity flow fuel system (Ya know, like a Cessna 172, Ken, are you listening?).

Before you even consider buying any specific type of plane, go sit in one for an hour.  I mean it.

Never, EVER ignore that knot in your stomach.  When something seems wrong, something IS wrong.

Speed costs money.  If you want to fly at 200 knots then do it.  There is nothing more hypocritical than flying a speed-demon airplane at economy cruise.  It's just wrong.

Always go pee before you fly, even if you think you don't have to.  This goes double for cross country flying. And on that subject, if you bring water or a drink in the plane, make sure it has a secure lid and do not start with it until you are in your last hour of the flight.

A cockpit is a lousy classroom and an even lousier lunchroom.  Do a detailed class before you fly and try to eat on the ground if you can.

Get-there-itis kills. When in doubt divert. There is no shame in discretion and nothing is more expensive than a funeral.

An instrument rating does not make you bulletproof.  Know your limits and stay within them.  Well within them.  Even airline pilots get killed in weather.

If two pilots are in the plane make damn sure you both know who is PIC.

Have fun, otherwise, what's the point?

Air Force vs. Airlines: Let's laugh a little

For what it is worth I made all of these up, I did not copy them.  If they suck, blame me and me alone.

The Air Force flies into hostile skies and drops angry fighting men on to the battlefield

The airlines fly into JFK and drop Yankees fans into Queens (home of the Mets)

Air Force pilots dodge fire in Iraq and Afghanistan

Airline pilots dodge each other at O'Hare and LAX

Air Force pilots carry guns in case they are brought down

Airline pilots carry guns to prevent being brought down

Air Force pilots drink cheap scotch

Airline pilots drink better cheap scotch (except during the manager's special at the Embassy Suites)

The Air Force has loadmasters

The airlines have flight attendants that look like loadmasters

Air Force fighter pilots fly 300 hours a year

Airline pilots fly 300 hours by April.

Air Force pilots have GO PILLS

Airline pilots have Starbucks

Air Force pilots have parachutes, ejection seats and survival kits

Airline pilots don't, the airlines wants to make sure they bring the plane back

Air Force pilots retire at 42 with a 50% pension and go to the airlines

Airline pilots retire at 65 with a 401K and go fly some idiots Navajo for $22,000 a yr.

A crappy layover for an Air Force pilot is tent in Iraq

A crappy layover for an airline pilot is an Econolodge (you decide)

An Air Force bomber pilot is likely flying a plane his grandfather flew (BUFF)

An Airline pilot is likely flying an airplane that he flew at a different airline before it was merged into his current carrier

Air Force pilots dodge bullets and missiles

Airline pilots dodge crew services and FAA inspectors

Air Force pilots want to get promoted out of the cockpit

Airline pilots pray they can stay in the cockpit (medical/merger/backruptcy)

Air Force pilots get paid based on rank and time in service

Airline pilots get based on what the union can negotiate and who's in bankruptcy

Air Force pilots have the AFA

Airlines pilots have ALPA (I have no idea which one does a better job)

The Air Force has the BX

The Airlines have an airport discount

Air Force pilots fly plane loads of nasty grumpy people

Airline pilots fly plane loads of nasty grumpy people

Hit the Slide: Yet one more opinion on the runaway flight attendant

If you have not heard about the flight attendant that 'snapped his cap', chewed out the passengers on the PA system, grabbed some beer, opened the door (activating the escape slide) and jumped out of the plane and, to quote the song went "Slip, slide and away".....come out from under your rock and get some air.

There are alot of ways to blog about this but I will save the levity for the end.  There is plenty of sympathy for this chap within the working world and  the FA (flight attendant) community in particular but the reality is this, he broke the law and potentially endangered those around him.  All of that has been said but what had not been mentioned was his abandonment of his responsibility to the safety of his passengers, regardless how clueless or rude they may have been.

The following issues have been addressed repeatedly but I will highlight them quickly for reference:

• Cost to the airline for replacement of the slide and aircraft downtime is well in excess of $25,000
• Those slides deploy like canons and can kill someone under the right conditions
• The FAs are not badged for the ramp area so he committed a crime by being out there unescorted
• Others who were on the ramp during this may be in trouble for *SIDA violations
• His conduct reflects negatively on every FA in the industry

The real travesty here is not the security breach nor the potential threat nor even the financial impact.  The real offense is the abandonment of a safety critical responsibilty.  Despite the image, the real job of an FA is passenger safety.  There is a T-shirt FAs love that sums up their job.  It simply says: My job is to save your ass, not kiss it!  Inelegant but accurate.

Despite his tapping into worldwide employee angst and the emotional knee-jerk reaction of people to support him, he is no folk hero.  He abandoned his passengers as well as his responsibilty. Of course the talk and reality shows are already swooning over him and I hope he makes some money off of it because he is going to need it.  Aside from the criminal charges facing him he will likely have to reimburse the airline for their expenses.  Let us not forget no one made him work there.  He was free to quit and leave (in a normal fashion) at anytime.

Now for the humor (or at least my attempt):

Making a profane PA announcement...........................$0

Two airline beers.......................................................$10

Blowing an escape slide............................................$25,000

Having the Chinese news make a cartoon about you..,,PRICELESS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBvakgglAPM 

*SIDA is the Security Identification Display Area badge. You must have one to be on the airport ramp.

The Airline industry: A Journey to Babel

The airline industry was once seen as a glamour industry. It brought about images of travel to exotic destinations in faraway lands. Today it is the butt of jokes and Youtube videos. It means long lines, intrusive security and bitter crowds. All in all, has gone from an adventure to an ordeal. How did it go from first class to worst class so fast?

If you will give a little of your time I will try to explain the seven main reasons the industry has devolved into what it is today. Now we all know that not every airline flight is a bad experience, in fact, the airlines very much want you to have a good time and they want you to come back. But all too often we hear about how bad security was or service has diminished. This is not a detailed study but an overview of the highlights of what has caused the service to go the way it has.

The first reason we will look at was the government's lack of a strategic plan and its belief that airline service should be based on political necessity, not economic merit. Destinations were often not based on real needs. The government saw the airlines as a public utility with a responsibility to serve many money losing markets. The agency tasked with carrying out this function was the Civil Aeronautics board. Although it was disbanded in 1985, it had regulated the interstate airline industry since 1937.

Considered by many to be the worst bureaucracy in the government, by the 1960s it had set new standards for complacency. The CAB was known for being slow to respond to airline's requests for new routes and had even dismissed requests as 'stale' because they themselves had simply never gotten around to it. It was also a common tactic to only award an airline a lucrative route if it agreed to take a money loser as well. The service was underwritten by the U.S. taxpayer so the airlines did as they were told.

This led to a byzantine route structure for most airlines and a scenario where airline managers needed only operate their aircraft in a safe and reliable manner. Profits were all but assured and true competition did not exist. Although this gave stability to the air travel system, it in no way prepared them for true free market competition. This would prove to be a recipe for disaster.

The second reason was that during the 1960s and early 70s there was a globalization of terrorism. Western countries were being increasingly targeted by international terrorists who had learned that the airlines were soft, high profile targets with a guarantee of gaining worldwide headlines. By 1972 this led the government to require all airports to install security systems and metal detectors. This was the beginning of airport security as we know it today.

The third reason was the complete removal of the rule book. In the early 1970s the U.S. was suffering from stagflation. In 1973-74 an oil embargo by OPEC had raised the price of jet fuel and there was considerable passenger ire over higher airline ticket prices and rising subsidies for service to many cities. The government feared a possible massive bailout of the airlines as had happened with some railroads. The result was the airline deregulation act which was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978.

This took away the established way of doing business in the airlines up to this point. Many people consider this the single most significant event in the decay of the airline industry. Without the CAB forcing them to act as a public utility and serve losing markets, the airlines pulled out of many underperforming markets. Some cities lost service or had it downgraded to commuter service while others saw an increase in service. True competition was beginning.

Reason four was the arrival of new players in the game. With the opening of markets to newly formed airlines such as Atlantic Gulf, New York Air, Emerald, Peoples Express, Jet America, Muse Air, TranStar, Best, Florida Express, Regent Air, Air Atlanta and Kiwi, the established leagcy carriers now had new competition. In addition, existing intrastate airlines that had not been under CAB control started expanding beyond their home states. Airlines such Air Florida, PSA, AirCal and Southwest added even more competition to the existing legacy carriers.

This had an unforeseen effect on the older, established "legacy" carriers. They were perfectly able to compete with each other but these new "upstart" carriers had very low cost structures and could sell their product for much less than the legacy carriers. This gave the legacy carriers a new problem to deal with. The "low cost carrier".

The combination of low cost competition and high fuel prices hurt the legacy carriers and they began to hemorrhage money. They could not control the price of fuel so they went after whatever costs they could control. First went many of the freebies and passenger amenities such as magazines, pillows, blankets and the good food. Eventually management had little choice but to go after union contracts to try and lower wages. They furloughed employees, sold aircraft and gave up gates. But when they tried to lower wages and demand more productivity from workers they were on a collision course with the unions.

As the upstart carriers nipped away at their passenger loads, the major airlines slid towards bankruptcies. Some filed for chapter 11 reorganization which allowed them to throw out high dollar union contracts. This led to poor morale and a decline in the overall work ethos of many airline personnel. There were labor strikes, mergers and liquidations all of which compounded the industry's woes.

This led to issue number five, a radical change in airline leadership, management and workers. Against this backdrop of bankruptcies and mergers there were falling stock prices. This made many airlines worth more than the total valuation of their stock. The airlines became targets of corporate raiders who were not really interested in running airlines but in carving them up and selling off their valuable assets. Overfunded pension funds and expensive reservation systems made them tempting targets for takeover specialists.

As a consequence there was a huge turnover in career airline workers. The new, lower wages could not attract experienced workers and the new personnel often did not stay long. This moved the industry away from a career oriented work staff to an oft rotated work staff. The loss of experienced professionals in support areas such as ramp workers, reservations and gate staff was never fully recouped.

The result of these numerous mergers and bankruptcies of major and upstart airlines alike was a weakening of most airlines. Eastern, Pan Am and Braniff were liquidated along with countless upstarts. This did clear the way for some of the better managed and less leveraged companies to thrive.

By 1996 most of the dust had settled but by then the amenities were gone and airline travel had devolved into more of a chore than an adventure. Things picked up for a while in the late 90s and it looked like we might again see the fun return to travel, Then reason number two, terrorism, was revisited with the 9/11 attacks. Rigid security was reinstated and there were huge losses of revenue caused by public fear of terrorism. This resulted in the airlines returning to the tactics of wage concessions and mergers.

This was followed by commodities speculators causing another spike in oil prices. Again the airlines started to bleed money and again the leadership resorted to employee wage concessions and merger-mania. The legacy carriers have now taken all they can from their employees and have resorted to more cost cutting measures which has only further degraded their performance. All of this is hard on employees and morale has suffered again as a result. This is felt by the passenger every time a gate agent is rude, a flight attendant is flippant or a bag handler loses or abuses luggage.

Airline travel in the 1960s is often recalled as a utopian experience when compared to today's long lines and restrictive rules but the reality was quite different. For everything we have lost we have also gained something in return. Today's travel lacks the glamour of yesteryear but it is less expensive ergo accessible to more people. The lines are long but security has improved greatly. There is no subsidy for the airlines so they get by without being a burden on the taxpayer. As a result they are more efficient. The modern airliner may be a less exclusive way to travel but it causes far less air and noise pollution. All in all, the system has lived up to the hopes of providing safe, reliable and efficient travel.