Turbulence will not break up a plane in flight...will it?

Turbulence will not break up a plane in flight!  Well, that is pretty much true.  There was 1 recorded case of a BOAC 707 breaking up in turbuulence (+9,-4G) over Mt. Fuji Japan in 1960 but on one knows if broke up due to the turbulence or from an overspeed after a severe turbulence induced loss of control. Weather forcasting has come a long way in 53 years and no modern pilot has an excuse for getting near that kind of shearing force today. 

Basically, there are only 4 things that can destroy a modern plane in flight; a bomb/missile (terrorism), a catostrophic maintenance / mechanical failure, a midair collision or a bad pilot. 

The safety record of modern airliners is a partly testament to advances in security. This goes from intelligence agencies exposing plots to TSA finding guns. I know none of us have a love affair with TSA but they do catch some stuff we don't want on planes (they find about 2 guns a day nationwide). I am sure they miss plenty of stuff but it is better than nothing. There has also been a change in the way passengers act/react to threats. Try to hijack a plane today and you will likely get the crap beat out of you by the other passengers. Old school 'hijackers for ransom' were put out of business on 9/11 and no terrosist plots have been successful since then in the USA.

13% of accident are mechanical but there hasn't been a major fatal once since Alaska's in 2000. (the AA crash of an A-300 was deemed pilot error and even the Alaska crash was compounded by crew actions of running both electric trims together).

Improved ATC and traffic collision advances (TCAS 'Traffic Collision Avoidance System) and pilot training have greatly reduced the already miniscule threat from a mid air collision. 1986 was the last major fatal mid air in the USA.

Improved pilot training to include Windshear recovery, GRD PROX EGPWS terrain escape manuevers, unusual attitude recovery, wake turbulence seperation/recovery, flight in rarified air, turbulence avoidance and jet upset recovery, GPS/RNAV navigation (which has all but replaced the VOR systems in the airlines), glass cockpits with more info for pilots and gobs of other stuff. The last fatal crash in the USA was a Colgan Air commuter in 2009 due to pilot fatigue, poor training and icing conditions.
This is the case despite the skies becomeing even more jam-packed thanks to something called RVSM.

RVSM airspace (reduces the Required Vertical Seperation Minumum above 28,000 feet from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet) has opened up a lot of airspace and also increeased safety by tightening requirements for planes flying at FL280 and above (FL-flight level. It is the altitude adjusted to standard barometric pressure of 29.92). Airplanes use local altimeter settings in barometric pressure (which changes with the weather) to insure all pilots are at the correct height. If the outside pressure 29.80 inches of mercury then pilots dial that into a little window in their altimeters (called a Kolsman window). It is like synchronizing watches. Now all airplanes in the local area have identical altimeter read outs (especially important in instrument flying).

Above 18,000 feet planes go to fast to keep up with local settings so when you hit 18,000 feet you dial in 29.92 (standard) into the Kolsman window and everybody is synched up. When you have jets with 1200 mile per hour closure rates and only 1,000 feet vertically between them, you need everyone working form the same playbook. When I am at FL350 and another jet passes overhead going the other way at FL360 (which happens many times per trip), trust me, you want to be sure our altimeters are in synch. BTW, altimeters are allowed about 100 feet of slop at high altitude so we could be only 800 feet apart and still be in compliance. Cheery thought eh?! (show less)

China's First Female Astronaut

As I write this China's first female astronaut is orbiting the planet. ( for more go to: http://news.yahoo.com/china-puts-first-woman-astronaut-orbit-105154354.html ).  Now I respect the how sharp this woman must be to have risen to such a position in a country where brutal competition is the order of the day and I certainly do not mean to diminish China's space ambitions (you can just feel a big 'BUT' coming can't you?) but is this anything more than an effort to start chalking up political 'firsts'?

Russia put the first woman in space almost 50 years ago. Valentina Tereshkova  was the first woman in space in Vostock 6 on 16 June 1963 (becoming both the first woman and the first civilian to fly in space).  Her flight was considered more of a political publicity stunt by western observers (despite having groomed a group of American female astronauts to mirror the Mercury 7, none of whom ever flew in space; hey, it was the macho 60s) and NASA was not really interested in competing with Russia on seemingly minor political or public relations stunts.   As a result of NASA's unwavering comminttment to the moon landing, the Russians racked up a series of 'firsts' in space flight.  First to get man into psace (Gagarin in Vostock), first to get a man into orbit (Titov in Vostock: technically Gagarin did not complete a full orbit and)), first to launch a 2 man and then 3 man crew (Voshkod), first woman in space (Tereshkova), first space walk (Alexi Leonov) and the first space stations.  Meanwhile the Americans were taking a much more 'long term goal' oriented approach that made these advances in a logical progression (not based on concerns about being the first to perfom them).

While the Russians were racking up public relations victories with a series of 'firsts' the Americans were very methodically making important material advances and following up on them.  An example was the early space walks.  While Leonov basically bobbed around for 10 minutes before getting back in (which he alost was unable to do) American space walkers were learning to do real work on their extra vehicular activities (EVAs aka space walks).

After a while the Russians ran out of realtively easy and affordable 'firsts' and the Americans began to eclipse them in world headlines.  When Apollo 8 orbited the moon the Russians had nothing worthwhile to come back with.  They had ended their own lunar program when they realized the cost was prohibitive (and following the the loss of two of their N-1 moon rockets).  The USSR decided to concentrate on more affordable things like space stations.  When America landed men on the moon, the USA had won the space race.  The space race ended up being the kind of competition where the first guy off blocks sprints pass the grand stand grinning at the audience only to have the steady, well paced runner eventually eclipse him for the win.

NASA did finally put a woman awoman in space, the late Dr. Sally Ride, in 1983 (she passed away from cancer in July, 2012).  Dr. Ride had a PhD in Physics was was chosen out a group of 8,000 candidates, many of them also women.    Since then numerous women have flown into space and 4 have died in the effort (In the space shuttle Challenger, teacher Christa McAuliffe, and Judith Resnik died, January 1986. In February 2003, Lauren B. Clark and Kalpana Chawla were killed during re-entry of the shuttle Columbia).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_women_have_died_in_space_missions#ixzz1xyy4PF21

Now China, only a mere 5 decades behind the west, is repeating the same story.  Orbit a few guys, toss up a girl for a few orbits; then we'll see a 2 or 3 man ship and a few space walks perhaps followed by a small space station (or they can just buy our share of the ISS in exchange for retiring someof our debt).  Eventually they may actually make it to the moon.  If they do, hurray for them.  When they get there, if they could visit the Apollo 11 landing site and be so kind as to put the American flag back up.  I think Neil and Buzz's rocket motor knocked it over when they left....in 1969!

The slow decline of General Aviation in America.

Numbers do not lie and the harsh reality is that general aviation in the United States is on the decline.  There are many reasons for this ranging from high fuel prices to the stratospheric cost of new planes.  Many boogeymen have been identified but, in fact, there is not one lone culprit but a litany of sometimes seemingly unrelated ones.

Among the things that have an impact on new aircraft sales are interest rates, fuel prices, product liability costs, labor costs, the small scale of production, tax codes and the regulatory environment.  Oddly enough the sale of new general aviation aircraft is not as dependent on the overall health of the economy as one might think (as you will see later).

Another major issue is the cost and commitment of learning to fly.  All of these factors have an impact on the cost of obtaining a private pilot certificate and, when combined with an “instant gratification” oriented society, it becomes increasingly difficult to get new flying students through the door.  It is no small task to get someone to commit up to $10,000 and several months of their time to the endeavor.

In addition, the expensive light planes currently in production are in competition with substantially cheaper used planes.  The history of new light plane production holds some pretty cold math as noted in these data points.  Here is the history of modern light plane manufactoring at a glance:

In 1965 American aircraft companies sold 15,768 new private planes.  Despite a recession the number actually climbed to 17,811 new planes sold in 1978 (thus my earlier point that general aviation is not as directly linked to the overall economic picture as commercial aviation).  By 1980 the number had drifted down to 11,871 new aircraft sales and by 1981 it was only 9,457.  Then sales really started to plunge and by 1982 they had dropped by over half to only 4,266 new planes sold.  In 1986 Cessna Aircraft stopped making piston engine light planes.  By 1994 it only 928 new planes were sold in all the United States (this includes corporate aircraft).  There was a slight uptick and in 2009 when sales reached 1,587 but by 2010 sales were in decline again with only 1,334 new plane sales (a 16% drop).

In addition, most pilots attending flying schools today are working toward flying as a career.  There are less and less private pilot candidates as the cost and regulation continue to rise.  Increasing equipment requirements along with tighter security is both driving up costs and soaking much of the fun out of sport aviation.  Insurance is getting higher and many aircraft owners have elected to drop it.

Insurance has an impact on sales of new planes too.  In 1962 product liability was $52 per plane but by $1972 it had risen to $2,111 per unit.  Those were 1972 dollars.  That is $11,591 today.  Between that, low production volume (no economy of scale) high labor costs and a dwindling pool of potential buyers (pilots) the per-unit cost on a shiney new 2012 Cessna 172 tops $300,000.  Despite an impressive instrument suite and many enhancements it is still a Cessna-172.  This all colludes to hurt general aviation and helps us understand why only 19,893 new private pilot certificates were issues by the FAA in 2009 and that number dropped to 14,977 in 2010 (-25%). 

As the old guard of private pilots in their Luscombes and Piper Cubs begins to gentrify and as the rising cost forces more and more private pilots out of the arena we see a dwindling in our ranks.  Now the latest Cessna (The 162) is made in China.  Pilots are a largely patriotic bunch and the wisdom of this move (or lack thereof) will bear out in time.  General aviation is far from dead in America but unless we can invigorate a new generation of general aviation enthusiasts GA may be in a slow graveyard spiral toward the sunset.  Nowhere in this history of humankind have people known the kind of freedom allowed the private pilot.  The ability to jump in your own plane, point the nose where you like and just GO!  It will be a sad day and the end on one of the greatest eras in world history when the last private pilot heads west.

9/11/11: I came, I flew, I went home

Despite all the hoop-lah 9/11/11 was a normal day out on the line as an airline pilot.  I flew three legs including in and out of Boston (where Janet Napolitano had given a speech just that morning).  The weather was nice, the schedule ran on time and we got home 10 minutes early.  The biggest irritation was no one to marshall us in when we got to the gate in Orlando (that's what you get for showing up early in the airline biz).

I did take time to see the 9/11 memorial at Boston Logan during my long break there.  I had lunch with my best friend who drove me over and showed it to me (while showing off his new car).  The two Mass. State Police officers in their dress uniforms standing nearby (probably from the VIP visit) did give it a proper feeling of solemity though. 

All in all it was beyond a normal day,  it was a wonderful day.  I have had few better trips in my career.  I am convinced that we are more secure now than ever.  I am not saying our system is perfect or inpenetrable.  But we are awake at the switch and watching closely.  In a word, we are vigilant. For this I want to say two things:

1: While others pay tribute to the victims of 9/11 (and well they should) I would like to pay tribute to all of the people in the security chain, from the intelligence agents in the field to the TSA folks at the airport, the FFDOs, the police, the alert bag handler and of course the American military. I even wish to thank our elected officials (all parties and branches) for 10 attack free years in the United States.

2: On 9/11/11 I had grilled swordfish and salad with my best friend ( a member of the aforementioned security apparatus) only a few hundred yards from the gate where some of the hijackers departed on 9/11.  I had no sense of angst or worry.  We talked about our families, cars, computers and video cameras.  In other words; went on with our lives.  Stronger, wiser and more alert than 10 years and 1 day ago, but every bit as happy.  A note to the bad guys.....we win!

Space Shuttle, the Era Ends...Finally!

The long overdue shuttle replacement is alive and well in some designer's head but sadly it is nowhere near the launch pad.  The reasons for this are manifest but I will only take time to cover a few.  The blame for our current lack of domestic manned lift is not the fault of the current President nor his immediate predecessor.  If you want to see the real villain you must go back to the golden era of manned space flight; Apollo!  That's right, I said it, I went there.  Now that I have just made numerous new enemies let's see if I can back my play shall we?

Whereas the Russians had their limited resources in competition with each other, America had NASA to keep our resources aligned in a cooperative effort.  In doing so NASA director James Webb had control over a huge piece of the U.S. economy (estimates range from 6%-20% depending on the definition of control).  Regardless of how you define it NASA became a huge industrial machine.  It was a typical big government program.  It had to be to accomplish the political and scientific goals of landing a man on the moon by the end of 1969 (Kennedy's goal).  Once Kennedy was martyred by assassination, his goal took on an almost religious zeal in America.  I know, I was one of its most dedicated followers.  I was born in Florida in 1961 and grew up in the midst of the space age's "Go Fever".   My father's best friend was an engineer at Kennedy Space Center (the cape).  The moon was the ultimate brass ring.

Little did a trusting America realize that the NASA brass had another not so visible agenda.  Not an evil one by any means but one that dealt with the preservation of the space industry after the accomplishment of NASA's legal mandate.  That hidden agenda was to protect NASA's piece of the taxpayer pie and insure future work for the contractor's.  NASA leadership had made sure to spread the contracts around the country and no congressman wanted lay-offs in his district.  There were of course still layoffs after Apollo ended.   According to an interview with Apollo 17 mission commander Gene Cernan many of the Grumman engineers got their pink slips as soon as Apollo 17 lifted off the pad. 

Jerry Pournelle, author of "Lucifer's Hammer", has been a critic of the shuttle program for reasons that go beyond the technical merits or demerits.  He rightly observed that the STS program kept the space industry infrastructure intact at the expense of other programs.  Ironically it did it under the guise of cheaper access to space whereas in reality the STS was anything but cheap.  One example he noted was the absurdity of reusing solid rocket boosters (SRBs) and of building them in sections to begin with.  They were made in sections (which later helped cause the Challenger disaster) because of the need to transport them by rail from Utah (where the manufacturer was located).  They should have been made as a single, solid piece in one of many other states closer to the cape but the political clout of the era kept the contract in Utah. BOOM!

The shuttle engines were reworked Apollo J-2 engines (from the Saturn V second stage). Although they have been upgraded and reworked they are not new technology and did little to advance the state of the art.  Using them did insure that a lot of people kept their jobs though (again, not evil but also not NASA's mandate).  Although there is a sound logic in using what you know works it has the side effect of stifling progress. 

NASA spent the bulk of the space budget keeping the existing platform going at the cost of designing something better.  The Orion project, which should have been simple by comparison, has turned into a $3.9 billion nightmare.  It's original mission of going to the moon on Constellation has been scrapped and many critics consider it too complex for the relatively simple task of being a taxicab to the ISS but it has kept a lot of the space industry employed.....for now.

Meanwhile SpaceX Corp has developed the Dragon, a commercial space vehicle under NASA's much less expensive COTS program (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services).  In 2008, NASA announced the selection of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to resupply the International Space Station (ISS). The $1.6 billion contract represents at least of 12 flights (with options on missions for a total contract value of up to $3.1 billion). That is less than the money spent just to get Orion partially built.

To help keep perspective, each shuttle launch was running about $1.6 billion.  Although the Dragon lacks many of the shuttles capabilities the cost saving and technological advancements it represents are proof positive that we are finally past the Shuttle era and on a truly commercially viable future in space.

For more check out these sites.

http://www.spacex.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_d6YVA1Kg

The Late Great Chinese J-20 'Stealth' Fighter

In 1981 The USAF initated specifications for what would become the F-22 Raptor.  Sixteen years later it was rolled out to much fanfare.  On 15 December 2005 the USAF announced that the Raptor was operational.  During a two week exercise in Alaska in 2006, 12 F-22s downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat.  An F-15 pilot who went against a raptor equated the experience to being clubbed like a baby seal.  All four in his flight F-15s were ruled shot down by a single F-22.

Not to be left behind by this quantum leap in technology the Russians had the Sukhoi design bureau design a competing product.  The T-50 (nicknamed the Kraptor by cynical American officers) made its debut in 2010.  Although it looked like a Raptor from a distance it was quickly noted that many of the technologies that the make the F-22 a world beater were absent.  To begin with there was no vectored thrust.

Now the Chinese have rolled out their new pride and joy.  The J-20 (J = Jian which means Fighter).  Like the Russian T-50 western observers quickly noted the absence of vectored thrust. Western pilots were not nearly as alarmed as the media and American politicians.  This is a repeat of history.

In 1964 Red China decided it neede to build a domestic fighter.  Based largely on MiG 21 aerodynamics the J-8 was rolled out in 1969.  For political reasons production and delivery was delayed until 1980 (chalk one up for yet another cultural revolution).  By this time the west had moved on to infinitely more capable platforms such as the F-16 and F-15 Eagle.  The J-8 was hopelessly outclassed even by the Russian designs of the decade.  In the 1980s the Chinese had managed to deliver unto themselves the best of 1960s technology.

With new 6th generation fighters already being test flown including unmanned ones, it is safe to say that Chinese Medium range Ballistic Missiles are a far bigger threat that the J-20.  But then strategic planners have commented that the J-20 may be just a part of the Chinese battle plan.  If they use MRBMs to knock out our airbases in the region then they may believe they could rule the area uncontested.  F-22's would have to fly long distances and use aerial refueling.  But then that is why they have super-cruise (Mach 1+ speed without afterburner) and refueling probes.

The J-20 seems to be yet another example of delivering the very best of 20 year old technology.  A few angled corners and a digital "disco dash" cockpit display do not a world beater make.  This jet may represent a jump in technology for the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) but it still puts them well behind the west.  There is no evidence of a Raptor style integrated digital satellite linked "God's eye view" combat system that is linked to all other aircraft in the battlespace (but that does not insure that it does not have one).  Stealth experts have already determined that the stealthiness of the plane is not up to western standards.  Not only the shape is critical to low observable aircraft but also the materials.  Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin can attest as to how difficult these materials are to master working with.  It would appear that the J-20 would have been a great plane in 1980 but it is late to the party; ergo it is the late, great J-20.

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.