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.

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.