Broomstick: You and I have been the most vociferous on this issue; however KoalaBear should note that there have been others in this thread who have expressed views that are counter to our ursine-marsupial friend, and who have also provided supporting arguments and cites.
If I may, I’d like to summarize the argument so far:
[ul][li]Meigs field was vandalized by Mr. Daley.[/li][li]Mr. Daley justified his vandalism by claiming Meigs was a terror threat.[/li][li]KoalaBear maintains that Meigs was a terror threat and therefore the vandalism was justified.[/li][li]Broomstick, I, and others have pointed out that Meigs was not a terror threat.[/li][li]We provided logical arguments as to why General Aviation aircraft are poor choices for use as terror weapons, and therefore not a significant threat.[/li][li]We based our arguments on personal experience with, and intimate knowledge of, GA aircraft, and provided comparisons of the usefulness of GA aircraft with other means of attacking a city.[/li][li]We provided evidence in the form of citations from official and otherwise knowledgable sources that neither Meigs in particular, nor GA in general is a serious terror threat.[/li][li]We provided citations that show that Mr. Daley did not consider Meigs a terror threat.[/li][li]We showed that surveillance and safety have been compromised by the closure of Meigs.[/li][li]KoalaBear continues to claim that Meigs in particular was a terror threat, and so is GA in general.[/li][li]KoalaBear has offered no supporting evidence to support his or her position. (Sorry, I don’t know KoalaBear’s gender.)[/li][li]KoalaBear still maintains, in the face of logical arguments, performance capabilities of GA aircraft, and several citations, that Meigs was a terror threat.[/li][li]When asked to provide evidence to support his or her position, he or she has not only not done so, but has refused to do so – and does still.[/li][li]KoalaBear’s argument is that Meigs was a terror threat because Meigs was a terror threat – without providing any supporting evidence of that position.[/ul][/li]I know I will be corrected if I missed anything, but that’s what’s gone on so far as far as I can remember without going back through the entire thread.
What it comes down to is this: This is the Great Debates forum. In a debate, each side stakes its position and provides evidence to support that position. If one side refuses to provide support, then there is no debate. Or to put it in other terms, the side who provides the preponderance of the evidence wins the case.
Until KoalaBear provides supporting arguments that Meigs was a terror threat, there can be no debate.
Not only are you stubborn - you are an incredibly slow learner.
I already addressed the TFR - its covers little, and there are so many exceptions to its restrictions that it has almost no impact on flight over the city.
As for the ATC issue - I repeat: radar can’t see through buildings. Yes, there is a TRACON in Elgin and, you claim, a NORAD installation in McHenry (which I haven’t heard of before you brought it up, so a cite would be helpful, hint, hint) but there are these gonzo-tall buildings in line of sight between those installations and the lake front. Hence the term “blind spot”. If someone is loitering 500 feet off the water just off shore there’s no way either the Elgin or the McHenry facilities will know they’re there. So below a set altitude (which is higher than usual due to those skyscrapers) ATC can provide NO assistance to keep planes properly separated. And in a high traffic area that DOES reduce safety.
Of course, the pilots themselves have a big incentive to avoid smacking into each other which I’m sure even Koala can understand without detailed explanation. When I’m flying I’m always looking out for other traffic. But when there are a lot of planes in a relatively small area ATC sure can help keep everyone safe.
Short of installing a radar device EAST of the Loop there is NO WAY for either Elgin or McHenry to see what’s happening on the lakeshore via radar.
Saying “Elgin has taken over air traffic over the lakefront” means only that they’re now handling the folks on instrument flight plans that used to be handled by Meigs tower. But when radar coverage ends, so do ATC services. Radar tracking always ended at a relatively high altitude over Meigs for the simple reason the radar couldn’t reach as low as at other airports. Since I do not fly in instrument conditions I can’t speak in any more detail about that, but the lack of low-level radar coverage was also a factor in the airport being closed more often than average.
Regardless, MOST of the Meigs traffic is VFR and wouldn’t have been on an instrument flight plan anyhow. For them, traffic separation was served by flight controllers in the tower using the good old-fashioned eyeballs for planes outside of radar coverage. That service is gone now and there is no replacement short of an ATC tower on the lakefront. (I’m assuming knocking down buildings to provide better radar coverage is out of the question.)
In addition, I quote from the state statute, specifically Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 620, Section 5/79a:
(emphasis added)
So… never mind the Feds (although, of course, you do have to mind the Feds) looks like just the “mere” State of Illinois has the legal authority to order “correction” or “abatement” of damages caused in violation of this statute. In other words, if the courts decide against the mayor yes, it does look like the State of Illinois has the legal authority to order the airport repaired.
As do the Feds.
So, Koala’s protests to the contrary, the ultimate fate of Meigs field/Northerly island is not yet set in stone. There are both state and federal lawsuits to deal with, not to mention three injunctions against further alteration of the facility on the county, state, and federal level.
Definitely some lawyers stand to come out ahead. I don’t know about anyone else.
Perhaps he just hasn’t spoken with a warm and cheerful representative of the General Aviation community like yourself? I know I once harbored doubts about Meigs’ risk potential, but you’ve since persuaded me those reservations were baseless and uninformed.
Changing the mayor doesn’t change the underlying economic and political reality. Meigs costs more to operate, maintain and secure than it returns to the citizens of Chicago in the form of tangible benefits, and if the mayor is replaced in a scandal the politician who succeeds him will desire to distance himself as far from that controversy as possible.
I don’t trust your opinions on aviation security for obvious reasons, so I ignored your explanation in the absence of independent verification
It’s not my job to help you conduct your side of the debate, Broomstick, and frankly I’m stunned that you’d even ask. I chose my side of the argument because it was the stronger of the two positions – only a liar or a fool (go figure) would argue that Meigs was not a credible terror risk; finesse that trump and the rest of the books are yours.
If you’re unable to attack my position directly, I’m not going to give you anything to compensate for that disadvantage. But if you’re asking for my advice, I’d strongly suggest not strolling into debate threads like you’re Queen Shit of Turd Island, posting article-length Invect-O-Grams and daring people to knock the chip off your shoulder.
Well, if that’s your way of conceding that the argument is indeed purely academic, I’ll be satisfied to deprive you of an easy argument by itself.
He was quoted as saying that in the Sun-Times and the [iChicago Tribune, both articles having been referenced in this thread more than once. Which you would know if you actually read the links provided not just by myself but by others.
Right… medical transportation, search and rescue, and other such services are completely useless to the people who require them. If an organ transplant fails because the new kidney or heart was stuck in traffic on the freeway too long so what?
You want a park? How does a free park (no admission to lakefront parks) provide an “economic benefit”? Especially when there are already so many other parks in Chicago. Look, if you just prefer trees to airplanes say so, it’s OK - but don’t pretend that a park somehow brings money into a city. A park costs money to maintain.
As for “distancing from scandal” - a successor might rebuild the airport (which, as I’ve pointed out, would not cost nearly as much as the Daley camp is proclaiming) because he or she realizes that 1) the emergency and rescue services it provides ARE useful, 2) attracting business is GOOD for the city, 3) it’s less of a terror risk than Chicago’s other two airports, and 4) it would mend fences with many groups alienated by this scandal.
See, what you are continuing to fail to grasp is that this is NOT just about an airport but about the conduct of an elected official. Daley broke the law. In the eyes of many (including myself) that makes him forever unfit to hold public office. Who the hell is ever going to trust this guy again when he gave his word that he would keep the airport open until at least 2006? Who the hell is going to do business in a city where a mayor feels he has the right to ignore state and federal law and bulldoze a legally operating business in the middle of the night? And then he admits his stated reason for doing so is a lie and a trumped up excuse? Every TV news program ran a video of him saying just that, every newspaper in town quoted it.
If you thought Meigs was costing the city before, well - the manner in which it was closed is going to cost the city a great deal more. And you can jump up and down and scream and call me liar all you want, Koala, but it doesn’t change the facts. Daley lied, he broke his word, and no one is going to trust him again. Ever.
Maybe this is about terrorism to you but even Daley now admits that it had nothing to do with it (again, quoted in newspapers and shown on TV). The rest of us know this was a matter of power and politics, not security.
Well, I’m sorry if a statement based on flying for eight years in the Chicago area, including over the city, deaing with air traffic control, and otherwise gaining direct experience in the subject does not qualify as a “valid opinion” in your mind. I’m just so effing sorry that you feel a licensed pilot is unqualified to make judgements about aviation subjects. Just WHO would you consider a source qualified to make such an assessment? You? I’ve asked what your qualifications are in aviation and you never answered. So I’ll ask again, and throw in another request for free: what are your qualifications for making judgements in aviation and/or security? C’mon.
I’m not asking you to support my side, I’m asking you to support YOUR side. Since you have not done so - you have provided NO independent cites of your position - I can only conclude you have none and that your argument is based on irrational fears and phobias of a subject you not only have no experience in and do not understand but that you also have no desire to understand. Or perhaps you are incapable of doing research and learning about a new subject and can only stubbornly repeat what you have been brainwashed to believe.
And if all of that is NOT true - provide some cites for your side of the argument.
You have provided no support for that statement. You have provided zero backup of that. Stating “it’s obvious” is not good enough for a debate. You have to back up your statements. Do so or admit your position is solely YOUR opinion and is wholly without basis in fact.
Let me get this straight - the guy using four-letter insults more worthy of the Pit than Great Debates is acusing me of using “invective”? Oh, that’s FUNNY!
You do realize that there’s a bunch of us who IM each other after each of your posts and laugh at you, don’t you?
Gaudere: I think we need a ruling on the Rules of Debate. Positions have been stated by both sides. As I said in my last post, those of us who have taken the position that General Aviation, and specifically Meigs Field, does not pose a significant terror threat have given reasons that they are not. We have provided evidence based on years of personal experience and knowledge of the way the aviation system works in this country. We have provided cites that support our position and that Mayor Daley himself did not believe Meigs to be a terror threat. The opposition has said in effect, “Small airports are terror threats. Meigs is an airport, therefore it is a terror threat. Small airports are terror threats because they are terror threats.” The opposition refuses to provide evidence to support his or her argument, claiming that to do so would be to prove the other side’s argument.
Is it, or is it not, incumbent on both sides of a debate to provide supporting evidence so that that evidence can be proved or disproved on its merits? Or is it acceptable for one side to make a claim, refuse to support it, and then require the other side to disprove that claim? Specifically, is it permitted to say “This is my position. It is my position because it is my position. Prove that I’m wrong.”?
Being a lousy debater, or refusing to supply evidence, is not against the rules in GD (do you really want me personally deciding this, anyway? If I stripped out all the debates where a poster said “I beleive it because I beleive it. Prove me wrong.” we’d lose half the threads.). My job is to keep the forum tidy and un-flame-filled, not decide which side “wins”; the ultimate judge of who has the better argument is the readers of this board. A truly egregious offender in terms of poor debate could possibly be banned under the “jerk” rule, but I think it takes more than I’ve seen here.
Yeah, that’d be effective in religious debates. “Prove that you feel God in your heart!”
This doesn’t answer (or adress in any way, as far as I can see) the question I asked, though. I asked you: “KoalaBear, can you think of a single credible attack that was possible when Meigs was open that is not still possible today?” How is your reply relevant to that question? And what is your answer to the question?
And to my question of: “And what upsets you so much about the statement that Daley broke both Illinois state law and a FAA regulation?” you replied:
I guess I was thrown by the your statement of
when another poster mentioned it.
And finally, I asked how shutting down the tower at Meigs could possible enhance safety. You replied:
Again, as far as I can see you’re not answering the question I asked. You’ve been claiming that shutting down Meigs somehow reduces the risk of a terrorist attack on downtown Chicago; again I ask, how does shutting down the tower at Meigs decrease this risk? And remember that the buildings of downtown Chicago DO cause a radar shadow that the other facilities you mentioned do NOT cover.
Appeal to Fear. Prove that the closure of Meigs jeopardizes the delivery of these services.
A politician would restate the City’s need to “move forward” at every opportunity while turning a deaf ear to anything related to the entity formerly known as Meigs. Caving to the demands of the interest group instrumental to the conviction of his precedessor would be tantamount to political suicide – it just wouldn’t happen, except in one of your moister fantasies.
Your credibility is a joke, therefore your opinion is worthless. If there’s no corroborating evidence for your opinion I will assume it’s another lie.
Here are some articles I found edifying:
BBC: Private aviation security criticised - “…in general aviation, because it is not public, in the sense that not just anybody can board, security requirements are less than they are for airline aircraft,” said William Schumann, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
CBS News: Securing Small Airports, Flight Schools - “Terrorists who are no longer able to hijack commercial airliners because of increased security at commercial airports may turn to GA airports and aircraft to conduct operations,” the alert said.
WorldNetDaily: Private planes as weapons? - “The U.S. government expanded restricted airspace in the war against terror yesterday, explaining that terrorists are known to favor using private planes as weapons…”
ABC News: Private Planes at Risk - “Unfortunately, we have disclosed the possibility of terrorists looking at our weakest link. When you have tens of thousands of aircrafts sitting on numerous airfields and general aviation facilities around the country, we are at risk,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the chairman of Congress’ Subcommittee on Aviation, told ABCNEWS.
Ironic how you get contradicted regardless of who supplies the links, isn’t it?
If it helps you cope with your feelings of inadequacy and humiliation, go for it.
Without Meigs, those 200+ flights a year for medical purposes no longer exist. I would call that “jeopardized”.
#1 - Please drop the sexual inneundos.
a) It has no place in Great Debates
b) we’ve already been warned by a mod to make this less personal
c) I find it offensive in the context of this forum.
#2 - if Mayor Daley is convicted of anything in this matter it will be at the hands of the state and federal governments - “special interests” to which ANY mayor of ANY city must “cave” as you put it, because no one is above the law.
You still haven’t explained why a licensed pilot is somehow unqualified to render an opinion in an aviation matter.
Credibility? You’ve proven yourself more ignorant than average when it comes to aviation but I haven’t told you to get lost (in fact, you’re cheap entertainment) or told you that you can’t participate in this discussion, nor have I made references to your anatomy, sex life, or credibility (at least, not in a public forum). If you want to play those games I will cordially invite you to the BBQ Pit - care to meet me there?
As near as I can tell, the only reason you question my “credibility” or call me a liar is that I disagree with you.
FINALLY! That only took what, 4 pages?
Thank you for FINALLY supplying some cites. Of course, I disagree with many of the conclusions you have drawn but that is, of course, why this a “debate” forum.
I disagree with this being less safe. Because I can refuse to board anyone in my aircraft for any reason I choose it may be MORE safe. No one gets on my airplane unless I know them, and know they will behave. I don’t allow ANY alcohol whatsoever on board, which cuts down on air rage problems considerably.
Unlike airline pilots, I can choose to fly armed, with the weapon(s) of my choice which arguably makes me harder to hijack. But that is a debatable point.
This does leave the problem of “can you trust the pilot?”, but that is a security issue that isn’t limited to general aviation but rather the system as a whole.
Except they NEVER HAVE done this. Granted, that does not eliminate ALL possibility in the future, but since small planes in the range I fly (no more than 4 seats) are so small and carry so little the damage they can do is very limited. There is stricter security for general aviation over 12,000 lbs - those airplanes are big enough to do considerable damage.
It’s a little like arguing we should outlaw backpacks because terrorists might load them with explosives - they might (actually, they have) but the car bomb carries so much more bang that car bombs are much, much more a weapon of choice. (In fact, there have been more exploding backpacks than small planes used in terrorist attacks.)
Really? When have they EVER used a “private plane” as a weapon, anywhere in the world? They can hardly be said to “favor” them when they’ve never used them!
Train in them? Yes, terrorists have taken flight training in small airplanes. They’ve also taken driving lessons in cars. That’s how you learn to fly (and drive). But flight training is not terrorism.
Your homework, Koala, is to find EVEN ONE instance of a small plane used as a terror weapon. NOT the suicide in Tampa - that was a suicide, not a terror attack. I’m talking about a real terror attack.
You have any DATES for these quotes?
This issue was raised immediately post-9/11. In response, security has been beefed up at small airports. Airplanes that pose the highest risk of danger - crop dusters, business jets, etc. - now have rules for securing and/or rendering them inoperable when not in use. Even at my field, with our little airplanes, we are now not only putting the keys to the machines in safe in a locked room in a locked building after hours, we also use prop locks on all planes left outside and the local sheriff has increased patrols on the airport (remember, I mentioned that they have an aviation on the field so there is ALWAYS a deputy or three on duty there) This security issue has been addressed.
Do you have any particular continuing concerns as to how difficult it is or isn’t to steal an airplane?
Hon, you’re going to have to get a LOT nastier before I feel “humilated” or “inadequate”.
That’s OK - we’re happy to read complex answers, too.
What trap? No one’s trying to “trap” you here, we’re trying to have a discussion over differences of opinion.
You have a strange notion of what a “debate” entails, Koala.
Go back and re-read this thread. Pvenkman is in no way my “shill” or “sock puppet” but rather occupies a position somewhere between me and thee. Just because someone agrees with me on one or two points doesn’t mean they agree with me on all, or is somehow under my control.
To get back to your “judge, jury, and executioner” statement, to the best of my recollection (I’m trying to look up the exact law for accuracy’s sake) the death penalty is applicable only when damage to an aircraft actually results in an accident resulting in loss of life. I’m not sure it applies to damaging airports, and since there was no accident and no loss of life Mayor Daley will not be facing the death penalty over this one. So the “executioner” statement was a bit over the top. But, since you clearly are NOT an authority on aviation in any form I have forgiven you that and chalked it up to your usual hyperbole.
This is exactly what you are doing. “Y is presented” (“Small airports are terror threats.”) “Therefore claim X is true.” {“Meigs is a small airport, therefore it is a terror threat.”) Your “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim. You might need to work on your comprehension of concepts; especially if you are going to use them to attack others. You are engaging in the very activity that you are accusing Broomstick of.
Did you even read this article? We’ve been telling you that small aircraft are poor choices for terror attacks, and there is a cite right in your own link!
Your CBS News link says (and you quoted) “Terrorists… may turn to GA airports and aircraft to conduct operations.” “May”; not “are”. In this case, the FAA thought terrorists might turn to GA, so they issued an alert to pilots to be aware of suspicious persons. That’s all. They did not say “GA airports are a threat.” They said the pilots should be on their guard in case someone does try to launch an attack. And no one has launched any attacks.
Since you are ignorant of aviation, you do not know that 30-mile surveillance veils are common. These do not close airports, but provide a means of identifying aircraft from a distance. They are designed not to close airports. LAX is the centre of one of these zones and off the top of my head I can think of four GA airports that are under it. Of course if someone did want to crash into a skyscraper neither the “mode-c veil” nor the closure of all of the airports within it stop anyone from flying to downtown L.A.
But I find it difficult to take that site seriously. They claim that “TWA Flight 800 was targeted by a private plane packed with explosives,” according to a new book. Oh, and they just happen to be selling the book! First of all, the idea of a Cessna taking out a 747 is ludicrous. The 747 pilots will have been warned by ATC that there was a potential traffic conflict and will have taken evasive action (evasive action that did not occur, BTW, indicating that there was no other traffic). Then the little Skyhawk will have to chase the jet down and hit it. Right. GA aircraft typically fly less than 150 knots and have three-digit rates of climb. I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard the term “conspiracy theory”? It’s bunk. Secondly, WorldNetDaily is trying to sell the book! They have an interest in generating fear of terrorists and giving credence to conspiracy theorists because they will make money from it! :rolleyes:
And, as Broomstick pointed out: “When have they EVER used a “private plane” as a weapon, anywhere in the world? They can hardly be said to “favor” them when they’ve never used them!” WND can hardly be seen as a credible source on this issue.
I read your ABC News link. Did you miss the part where it said “The damage from a single-engine suicide plane attack would not likely be catastrophic.”? Which is what we’ve been saying. GA aircraft are a poor choice for terror attacks.
Continuing with your cites, I went to your complex question link. Again, you do not understand what you are reading; or you do not understand the concept. “KoalaBear, can you think of a single credible attack that was possible when Meigs was open that is not still possible today?” is nothing like “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Do you really think he was trying to “trap” you? Your responses reek of paranoia:
You are defending your position with “apparent logic and reason”. Anyreader can see that your “defense” is neither logical nor reasonable. You are also exhibiting irrational distrust of others. To wit:
Broomstick has told you her credientials. She has provided corroborating evidence. Her statements are corroborated by other pilots. Not only by me, but such mention is made in the very articles you yourself have linked to.
You did finally provide some cites that you think support your position; but you have neglected those parts of them that oh, so inconveniently, counter the other statements in them. You still have not anserwd PVenkman’s question.
You have not proven that Meigs was a terror threat.
Since I always feels it helps to get some numbers (not that I’m sure KoalaBear will listen), I pulled the weight and top speed of a Cessna 172R Skyhawk. Now, I’m not a pilot (I’m a flight sim and combat sim player), but I can at least do momentum comparisions. Now, a normal load for takeoff of a Skyhawk is apparently 2,450 pounds. This thing can apparently do 123 knots (about 140 mph). In metric, that’s 1,111 kg and 228 kph.
I drive a 1980 Volvo 245 DL (245=station wagon.) It weighs 3051 pounds. Where I live, I can generally do at least 40 mph on the main streets (and no more than 5 mph above the speed limit) or greater. So it’s believable that I could do at least 50 or 60 on surface streets. In metric, that’s 1389.9 kg and (assume 50 mph) 80 kph.
Now, it’s basic physics that p=mv. Remember, also, that mass has to be in kilograms and velocity in meters/second. In theory (discounting a pilot/driver with the same mass), the Cessna will crash into something with a maximum force of 70,363 N while the Volvo will crash with a maximum force of 31,067 N. (I’d do this in English, but actually, I don’t know the correct units.)
Now, let’s assume that neither crash is intentional. Let’s say the pilot loses enough control that the crash is inevitable, but that he can slow it down so that at least it won’t cause as much damage. Let’s take that speed to be stall speed, which is apparently 51 knots (59 mph or 94 kph.) Let’s also assume that the car is at that speed by virtue of a stuck gas pedal or something (maybe a driver that has gone into diabetic shock or a seizure or something) else. Now, that makes the momentum 29,009 N for the Skyhawk and 36,292 N for the Volvo. At comparable speeds, just by virtue of weight alone, the Volvo can do more damage.
Okay, so at first glance, the Cessna can hit something a heck of a lot harder. However, momentum calculations ain’t that easy. The Skyhawk and my car are made of two different things. (Correct me at any time, Broomstick and Johnny.) Volvos have a reputation for safety, and for good reason. Those suckers are made of lots and lots of steel and they don’t really crumple on impact.
Now, I’ll admit I don’t know much about airplanes, but there’s a reason its called aircraft aluminum and good reasons for aluminum use (I won’t get into the chemistry or material science.) My guess would be that a Skyhawk is made of lots and lots of aluminum and probably other lightweight composite materials. Maybe some titanium and magnesium is in there as well, plus some steel for the engine and stuff.
So, what do we have here? A plane made of light materials which gains whatever higher momentum over my car by virtue of speed and a car that, although it has a lower top speed, will have a higher momentum than the plane at any same speed. We have different materials used in construction and different design characteristics. I know from personal experience that the car is not made to crumple in a front-end impact (though it was a crash at a relatively low speed) but can really damage something else if what it hit has any inclination to yield (you should’ve seen what it did to the car I T-boned). I can look at the relevant pictures from Tampa and other crash sites (such as the B-whatever-it-was that hit the Empire State Building) and I can listen to people with more expertise than I have on the characteristics of a light plane in a crash. I can use my basic knowledge of design to assume that a light plane will probably crumple like a modern car (at least as a way to think of it.)
So, what about other objections? Sure you can fill a Skyhawk full of explosives. You can also do that to my car. Now, I don’t know what the max loads are. However, the car has other advantages. I don’t even have to crash it. I can just park it there full of explosives on a timer and probably no one will give it a second glance. It’d be easier if I was driving something with a trunk instead of an all-glass hatchback, but something could probably be rigged to keep the explosives hidden. We know what happens with car bombs and what happens when you scale one up to the size of a moving van.
So, for the probably pretty crummy use of either one as a terror weapon, I’ll take the car.
I didn’t consider this to be a complex question, and certainly didn’t intend it to be one. In any case I’d still like to hear your answer even if that answer proves to be complex.
You’re being too paranoid by far. There’s no trap here, I’m simply trying to determine why you think what you appear to think.
That’s just rude and uncalled for, and frankly I think I deserve an apology. I have not been rude to you in any way or made any personal attacks of any kind and can see no reason for you to respond in this way.
For the record, and I only say this to prevent any kind of ridiculous claim that since I didn’t deny this it must be true, I am not a sock puppet or shill of any kind. To the best of my knowledge I’ve never met another doper in real life.
KoalaBear, I am not trying to be cunning! I’m simply trying to get you to explain why you hold the views you do! And as far as I can see you have yet to truly answer any of the questions I’ve asked - you’ve either given an answer that didn’t address the question or given an excuse for not answering.
And I have to say I’d agree with most of your figures. The C172 isn’t a plane I have a lot of time in, nor do I have a manual for one handy, but everything sounds reasonable to my recollection.
I will expand the speed envelope just a trifle. Your stall speed is correct (more or less, without splitting hair on loading, flap setting, etc.) but the “123 knots” is top speed in level flight. Remember that airplanes can utilize gravity in ways cars can’t. In a dive you should be able to get it up to around 190 knots before you have to worry about breakup or control-lock (probably not an issue for a suicide bomber). I haven’t spun a C172 but I have done spins in a C150 - a smaller plane but with very simillar flight characteristics. The vertical speed component in a spin for a C150 can top 270 - but that’s at an angle between straight down and about 70 degrees to the ground. And only for the first few seconds - after that the vertical speed decreases. I don’t fully understand the aerodynamics, but I can speak from some limited experience on this. So, in order to achieve that high speed you’ll have to spin in from about 1000-1500 feet above the target. Any higher, the speed diminishes. So, from a height of 3000 feet (the limit of many of the TFR’s that have been issued) you’re not going to reach that highest rate of speed. Or rather, you’ll reach it - but before you hit the target. And then you’ll lose some of the speed. Re-run the calculations using that top speed and you’ll find something closer to the worst-case sceanario.
I suspect you’ll find that, even then, the airplane’s maximum damage won’t equal that of, say, a Ford Explorer doing 100 mph. But I’m not so adroit at figuring the momentum problem so have at it. I’ll be curious to see the results.
Even so, that “worst-case” implies a vertical assault, not the horizontal shearing that slices support structures in a building. We had a small plane slam into the top of a building after a mid-air collision near Waukegan airport some years ago (killed Bob Collins, a local radio celebrity). His plane was a two-seater but was fully aerobatic, meaning heavier than most two-seaters and up in the weight range of a C172. There was damage to the roof and the upper floor, but no more than that. The building’s fire suppression system handled the fire with no problem. Buildings are designed to handle vertical loads. So I would say past history shows that buildings can withstand small airplanes crashing into them at higher than normal speeds.
Wow, titanium in a Cessna? Huh… I don’t think so… but I’m not a designer or manufacturer so don’t quote me on that.
A C172 is mostly hollow. It’s aluminum sheeting stretched and riveted over an aluminum framwork. Certain items like bolts and turnbuckles are made of steel, but that skin isn’t very thick. Sort of like pop can thickness, maybe a little more (think 1970’s weight beer cans). On low wings you’ll see little signs saying “no step” on parts of the wings. That means if you do step on it your body weight will likely punch through it. Airplanes dent. You have to handle them with care on the ground because holes can get punched in the skin. The main spar of the wing is strong - but it’s designed to handle loads hanging beneath the wing. Impacts from the front, even low speed ones such as happens with clumsy towing of an airplane around hangars at low speed, can break that spar. It can even break off a wing entirely. (In the Tampa case that’s exactly what happened - the wings broke off and fell to the ground while the fuselage wound up about halfway into the building). Breaking that spar dissapates a lot of energy and slows the rest of the plane down.
Now, the engine does incorporate more steel - it’s the heaviest component of the airplane - as does the firewall and engine mounts. Even there, though, the airplane is lighter than an equivalent car. Airplane engines are small and light for their size and horsepower, and airplanes also use less horsepower than most cars and SUVs on the road today. A C172 typically has a 145 hp engine (that’s pre-1963 or '64) up to 160 or 180 hp. Compare that to a lot of cars, trucks, SUV’s, etc.
Oh, I’d say it’d crumple even better. In fact, there’s tendency for everything from the back of the firewall to the second set of seats in a C172 to get obliterated. The engine might be recognizable but everything else - prop, landing gear, windshield, windows, doors, seats, pilot and co-pilot - tends to go >squish<. Then you have a remarkably intact back third of a fuselage, with the rudder and other tail bits distorted from twisting forces and maybe some impact. But even inside that tail - which looks intact from the outside - you’re going to have sprung stringers. It’ll look like a pile of aluminum skewers inside because the frame will have more or less shattered.
Of course, every crash is different, but that’s a fairly typical sceanario for a crash of a 2 or 4 seat small plane.
Whatever the max loads are, the car can carry more.
Although the airplane structure is largely hollow you can’t just fill everything up with stuff - if you load the hollow tail behind the luggage area you’ll upset the airplane’s balance so much the tail will rest on the ground, the nosewheel will be in the air, you sure won’t go anywhere, and you’ll attract a lot of attention. Loading stuff into the hollow portions of the wings may cause damage by stressing area abnormally, interfere with the controls, and cause balance problems to the point of making the airplane uncontrollable. Overload it enough - even if it stays in balance - and as soon as you perform any but the gentlest maneuver you many damage the plane (rendering it uncontrollable) or even snap off the wings if you’re rough enough. It’s not just a matter of how much volume is in the airplane structure - the laws of physics and flight severely limit the payload of any airplane.
I suppose you could just throw a blanket over them… wonder what real car bombers do?
I wish to address some issues I have with the ABCNews article presented by KoalaBear. By the way - the article is dated September 3, 2002 so it’s somewhat out of date.
Actually, I think that was a drop in theft rates from previous years. California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas also lead the nation in airplane thefts - drug runners steal them, load them with contraband, and use them as transports. Or sometimes take them to “chopshops”. That close international border facilitates get-aways. Oh, and there are a certain number of insurance fraud cases. But taken out of context this seems to imply that thefts are rising, or that seven stolen planes is a lot. It’s not - planes are valuable objects, just like cars, boats, trucks, motorcycles, mountainbikes…
This is not true. However, someone not familar with airplanes (such as a typical news reporter) may not recognize the signs of increased security. For instance, prior to September 11 at my airfield if you reserved a rental for a timeslot outside of normal business hours they’d leave the key under the pilot’s seat, along with the required paperwork. They don’t do that anymore. There are devices put on the airplanes to render them much more difficult to steal. These devices aren’t very big and can easily be missed if you don’t know what you’re looking for. Yes, there may be airfields out there that haven’t improved their security - in which case they are breaking the new rules and should be dealt with under those rules. Even before the formation of the DHS and TSA the FAA had the authority to come out to a field and correct problems on the spot - and they have done so in my area when owners refused to cooperate.
OK, I have a real problem with this line of “reasoning”. Let’s see, potential terrorist is standing at a deserted airfield with tools like bolt cutters, wire snips, and so forth, goes forth to steal a plane and - OH NO! He has a piece of laminated plastic with his picture on it in his pocket!. The ID card wrestles him to the ground and puts him into an armlock, then calls the authorities…
Folks, an ID card isn’t going to prevent jack
The Feds do now require that pilots carry a “government issued” picture ID whenever flying. This usually amounts to a state issued driver’s license, but can include passports. The upside to this is that it saves the Feds a lot of money (virtually all pilots also have a driver’s license already) AND they can require foreign pilots to hold to the same rule without having to issue ID’s to them (remember, passports are OK). So we now carry pilot’s license, medical form, and driver’s license/other valid ID. That’s a lot of bits o’ stuff to prove who I am. In addition many airports are now also requiring their own picture ID to have run of the grounds - if you aren’t one of their people they will provide you an escort (I’ve had personal experience with this, too).
Can any of that be forged? Sure. Any ID can be forged. But it’s more troublesome and expensive to forge multiple documents.
Does it really do any good? Nope. The September 11th “19” all carried valid, un-forged, government issued ID’s. They had no criminal records. They weren’t on any watch lists. There was nothing to trigger suspicion. Current security measures would be unlikely to catch them (or others like them) at this time.
All this does is discourage “amateurs”. It makes things more difficult, but not impossible. Now, that might be worth it - one of the techniques of preventing car theft or breaking and entering crimes is to make your possessions more difficult to steal than your neighbor’s. If we make it difficult enough to cause trouble in the US the terrorists will hit other targers elsewhere that are easier. And that’s pretty much what’s happened - the terror attacks since 9/11 (except for that anthrax business) have all been overseas.
Which brings up an important point - you don’t have to reduce the risk to zero to be effective at preventing attacks.
Yes, and you can steal a car in 60 seconds - in theory.
I actually had to hand prop an airplane once (that’s a necessary component of starting a “hotwired” airplane). It was NOT as straightforward as I was led to believe by some of the oldtimer’s.
To steal an airplane from my home airport you’re going to need, at a minimum, boltcutters and wire snips. You have to be able to use them on the airplane while in plain sight of everyone else at the airport. Unless you’re stealing one out of the hangar, in which case you have to go through a lock, then open the big doors which involve flashing lights and warning buzzers when they’re moving (yeah, that’s subtle). Anyhow, you have to cut off the prop locks, break some wires, stuff like that. Without anyone noticing. OK, maybe you do that at night - but it’s dark and there are those sheriff patrols…
OK, fine, let’s assume Mr. Bad Guy does all that. Then he has to handprop the plane. While a 65 hp Cub props pretty easy, a Piper Warrior or Cessna 172 with a 160 hp engine (the typical size) takes significantly more oomph to get going. Once it’s going, you have to run and get into the airplane – and airplanes are LOUD. You WILL be noticed at this point.
You still have to get off the ground.
About 4 years ago someone climbed over the barbed-wire topped fence around Gary regional airport and stole an airplane. (The owner stupidly had left the keys in it - we were all a lot less cautious back then) He got it started. Well, the tower noticed this guy and got suspicious when he didn’t call over the radio and didn’t respond to visual signals. They stopped him before he ever got to the runway simply by intercepting the airplane with a van - because on the ground cars, trucks, vans, etc can move faster and more nimbly than airplanes. The side of the van got chewed up - but the prop and crankshaft on the airplane were destroyed. So, even back then, when no one was thinking terrorism, it wasn’t THAT easy to steal an airplane. Nowadays it’s going to be harder. Impossible? No… but more difficult. It’s a “harder target” in the jargon of the day.
Which might be why there are now TFR’s issued for major sporting events like the Super Bowl. Is that a garauntee there will never be a terror attack on the Super Bowl? Of course not - even if this is sufficiently discouraging to avoid an air attack there are other options for causing mayhem in such a crowd. But, again, it’s a matter of reducing risk.
Overall, I wasn’t too impressed with the article. It was clearly written by someone who wasn’t used to the aviation environment and clearly was not up on the changes in regulations and rules (even in September 2002). It seemed slanted towards fear-mongering, or at least anxiety-mongering.
This is a contintual problem with aviation reporting in the mass media. Most reporters don’t have an adequate background to really understand what they’re reporting on.
It’s interesting that when we have crashes and incidents involving airplanes around Chicago the tendency for the TV news is to put the weatherguy on the story instead of the usual beat reporters. Why would they do that? Because a number of weather folks in the area are pilots, former ATC, or aviation meterologists. Jim Tillman, for instance, is a former airline pilot. Rick DiMaio used to be a meterologist for United Airlines. Brant Miller is a pilot. Byron Who’s-Last-I-Can’t-Remember-Right-Now is a former air traffic controller for the Air Force. Their backgrounds make them more qualified for some of these stories than some of their colleagues with a heavier journalism background.
The necessary act of terrorism isn’t destruction, but murder. The object is to kill enough people with sufficient brutality that you put the rest of the population in mortal panic. When you blow up a building you destroy an object of value, yes, but your real target is the people who happen to be inside that building at the time.
Light planes are routinely used to spray insecticide on food crops. They can fly low and fast and are therefore well suited for that purpose. But what’s to stop someone from using the same aircraft to distribute an aerosolized biotoxin over an urban area instead? Impact damage isn’t important to a terrorist; body count is all that matters.
Nobody can calculate the risk of a scenario like this. It hasn’t happened yet, so we don’t know exactly how it might be done. But that’s exactly what people would have said about wrecking an office building with a passenger airliner prior to 9/11 – ‘It hasn’t happened yet’ is a lame excuse to do nothing at all to prevent it. Good security doesn’t come cheap, and while we can’t live without airports we can cetainly live with fewer of them, so a reduction in capacity is inevitable from this point.
Consequently, Meigs isn’t really the issue and terror isn’t really the issue: general aviation is the issue and the future doesn’t look rosy. Poor rhetorical skills aside, Broomstick and Johnny L.A. aren’t fighting for Meigs but for a way of life that unfortunately pits their interests against those of the general public. Every airport that gets closed pinches their lifestyle tighter and deprives them of increasingly more of the freedoms they’ve worked hard for the privilege to enjoy.
They see Meigs as a symbolic battle, because if they can’t keep it open they can’t keep any general aviation airport open and its closure might embolden other communities to quickly follow suit. What they fail to realize I think is that the strategy of contradicting even the most obvious facts harms their cause far more than it helps it. By attempting to create a false sense of complacency in the face of a genuine risk, they’re promoting precisely the condition that has preceded virtually every aviation disaster from the Hindenburg to the Columbia.
If I were them, I’d accept the fact that some airports will need to close in order for the majority to remain open.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: Deliberate deception in one matter will be imputed to related matters. You’ve lied about safety and security before, I have no reason to believe you’re not lying now.
I did that yesterday. Your homework, Broomstick, is to slip a rubber band around your wrist and snap it whenever you feel the urge to deny objective reality.
Bullshit. When your chat buddies create accounts in order to enter the thread to run interference for you, that’s a shill.
By that definition ALL murder is terrorism. In fact, by your definition you wouldn’t even have to kill people - just scare the dickens out of them. Maybe we should ban Halloween?
Geez, will you get yourself educated? They can fly low and slow which makes them suited to that purpose. In fact, very few of the total general aviation fleet is used for this, they have to be modified in order to do this, and those that meet this description are heavily regulated and watched. As are the parts required to make the modifications and the people selling them. There are more protections on cropdusters than on the diesel fuel and fertilizer combination used to blow up the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
It’s not nearly as easy to steal a cropduster as people think.
A randomly chosen light plane is poorly designed for this task
You’d need massive, massive amounts of stuff for an arial drop
The payload in a small plane is very limited.
“Biotoxins” are not as easy to deploy as the news media leads you to believe. Look at the anthrax case - massive contamination of entire buildings, but relatively few people exposed got sick - and anthrax was supposed to be one of the big baddies, a “worst case” situation.
What’s going to stop them? There are easier ways to cause terror, that’s what’s going to stop them.
I can agree with that - BUT you must take EFFECTIVE action to prevent an occurance as opposed to “feel good” window dressing that, in reality, does nothing but waste time and money.
And we maintain that the general public has far more use for general aviation than it thinks. Do you want your mail delivered from one side of the country to another? Do you want air ambulance service after an accident? Do you use Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, Airborne, or any similar company? Virtually all of the pipeline and powerline inspections done in this country are done from the air - or doesn’t electricity and natural gas matter to you? General aviation train 70% of the airline pilots, and provides 100% of their continuing training and education which they are required to undergo several times a year.
You say the future of GA doesn’t look rosy? End GA and in 10 years you won’t have anyone to fly the airlines - that will definitely put a crimp in business travel, won’t it?
Above and beyond all the “practical” reasons - explain to me why I should have to justify to you an activity that is legal and for which I am qualified? I don’t tell you how to spend your time and money, what gives you the right to dictate such terms to me?
Actually, we’ll settle for no casin-- excuse me, I mean park.
Koala, it’s not just that it closed - it’s the MANNER in which it was closed. Daley broke the law and thinks he can get away with it - that’s a real problem. No one is above the law, but if he gets away with this he will be, and what will he do next?
Complacency? I think not! Koala, I have a deep understanding of the risks of aviation - I’ve helped pulled bloody wrecks off of runways, I’ve had friends and acquaintances killed, I do understand that aviation can be terribly dangerous. I am NOT complacent. However, I am disagreeing with you on what the risks are and aren’t.
The Hindenburg I can’t speak much about, but those involved in space travel do have an understanding of the risks they run that far exceeds the understanding of the general public - which includes you, my dear. Yes, I was shocked when the Columbia broke up - but not terribly surprised. Space is dangerous and the only wonder is that we haven’t lost more people. Some would argue that that is justification for shutting down NASA. I would argue that if adults are fully informed of the risk and choose to take them anyway, more power to them. It’s a matter of risk tolerance. Mine is higher than average, and yours Koala, is significantly lower than mine. Which, I think, is one of the reasons we disagree. I am willing to tolerate much more risk in my life than you are.
When and where have I lied?
If you disagree with me that does not mean either of us is lying, and we certainly have disagreed. But unless you can demonstrate that I’ve lied (you know, with cites) you’re out of line.
No you didn’t!
Huh?
I don’t know PVenkman - I don’t even know if that person is male or female, young or old… I’ve never been in a chatroom with that person, or IM’d, or e-mailed PVenkman… the entire total of our communications can be found on this message board.
You are way, way out of line accusing people of conspiracy like that. I guess you just can’t accept that maybe your view is not the majority, at least on this thread? Who are you going to acuse me of controlling next, Johnny LA?
Get a grip, Koala - no one here is trying to trick you, no one is involved in any sort of conspiracy to do whatever it is you think we’re trying to do, no one here is anyone’s shill or sock puppet, We are TRYING to have a discussion on the OP and related topics, not engaged in one-upmanship, battle of wills, or even attempts to convert disagreeing parties to our point of view. That’s really all this is - a discussion.
“Prove that you feel God in your heart!”