I suppose I should dissect Koala’s latest cite, the one that supposely supports the “small plane as terror risk”.
First of all, I specifically excluded the Tampa incident from consideration, but, of course, that is the one incident she (is Koala a she? I don’t know, anyhoo…) zeros in on.
Let’s look at some of this, shall we?
Note that this article even starts out calling this suicide, not terrorism
Again, more poor understanding of the situation by the media. Probably doesn’t help that this is a foreign journalist (BBC) discussing American regulations. In fact, there was never a requirement for general aviation airplanes to be manufacturer with either door locks (some of them don’t have doors) or ignition keys. So the first part of that contains some error.
Secondly, there are NOW requirements for owners to “secure” their airplanes. If you do have a no-door, no key plane you pretty much have to lock it up inside at night. I’ve already mentioned the prop locks now required on the rentals where I fly. It’s not a matter of “encouraging” security - new security was required and is now in place.
OK, there we go - the military did not perceive this kid as a threat. Who did? The media - because a whacko kid sells more cornflakes than a troubled, suicidal teen I guess. It’s right there in black and white - one teen in an otherwise empty plane is not considered a threat to the military.
Please tell me why I should take the word of a BBC journalist over that of an Admiral in regards to a threat assessment of something near a military base.
In other words, this isn’t much of a threat. Sure, people were disturbed at the time it happened. Frankly, I’m disturbed when I’m walking near a skyscraper and a window-washer drops something - I mean, it might fall on my head. But that’s not the same thing as terrrorism. The reaction since then by many (and many were quoted on TV video clips just after the Meigs vandalism) is that “Oh, you mean like in Tampa? Well, that didn’t do hardly any damage, did it?” or the like.
Gosh, that doesn’t sound like general aviation avoiding the problem, does it? We want effective security measures – because we’d like to feel safe, too. By all means - check out the pilot databases for known terrorists (of course, the Sept 11 guys weren’t known to be terrorists beforehand…), work on the ID problem (we’ve since come up with a workable solution, at least for the short term, and discussions are on-going about future changes)
This article actually makes the case that this was NOT terrorism but the actions of a troubled individual. If that’s the standard for terrorism then the drunks sleeping on the CTA, or the mentally ill homeless people wandering Wacker Drive are all “terrorists” because they are disturbing and some people view them as threatening. Or maybe Koala is defining all suicide as terrorism becuase it’s “disturbing”?
Or maybe the airplane crash itself was the terrorism? In that case Flight 587 which landed on Rockaway was terrorism - I mean, it scared the dickens out of a LOT of people, killed not only everyone aboard but folks on the ground… oh, wait, even the media said that was “just” a plane accident. Guess that definition doesn’t work, either.
Try again, Koala - find EVEN ONE instance where a small plane was used for terrorism. That is, used to delibrately cause terror.
By the way - the TFR over downtown Chicago was lifted yesterday. We can now resume flying laps around the Sear Tower and Hancock buildings with impunity.
It has been shown that delivery trucks are a far greater risk than light aircraft. There are many more of them, and they are more suited to “killing people with sufficient bruatlity to put the rest of the population in mortal panic”. Trucks have been used to bomb the Federal building in Oklahoma City, the WTC, the marine barracks in Beirut, and a couple of U.S. embassies in Africa. Car bombs are used routinely in Israel and other places. They have caused much more damage than any light aircraft has. Of course, no terrorist attacks have been used as terror weapons. Tampa was a suicide, not a terror attack – and the only one hurt was the kid, and the damage was minimal. So think of that next time you’re downtown and you see a Ryder truck on the road. Any one of them can be loaded with explosives, and you’ll never know it until you see the fireball and the shockwave, heat and debris comes flying at you!
So why aren’t you trying to rid the city of trucks?
Yes it is. You maintain that small airports are terror threats. We have shown that they are not.
You are not qualified to make that determination.
It’s not about lifestyle, which has been pointed out several times in this thread.
Oh that’s rich, coming from you!You are the one who is contradicting the mountain of obvious facts.
Okay, I’m stepping out of the debate here for a moment. This is not a personal attack. You can take it or leave it as you wish. But I have noticed a pattern in your posts. First, you have an irrational fear of small aircraft. They are irrational because, as we have shown, they are not a significant risk. When we point this out, you refuse to listen. Second: When we ask you for factual evidence to support your side, you either refuse to give it or you deflect the question. Third: You have accused us of trying to get you to provide us with “ammunition” to use against you. Fourth: You have accused us of setting “traps”. Fifth: In your last post you accused us (in colour and in bold type) of “calling in reinforecements”, as it were, to gang up on you. These indicate there may be issues that would be more benficially addressed elsewhere.
Just wanted to say I’ve run past Meigs/Northerly several times over the past coupla weeks, and I really miss seeing the planes land and take off. Can’t say I feel any safer for it.
At least they still have the wind socks up.
Not sure I understand Daley’s reasoning on how closing Meigs made Chi safer such that the no-fly zone could be lifted.
Johnny - have to agree fully with your comment on trucks. I’m sure I’m not the only city dweller/commuter who has made an informal short list of spots where a van or truck full of fertilizer, ala OK City, could do some real damage.
I think one of the things that pisses me off is the way Daley keeps saying he did this for the “people who live and work in the high-rises”. I’m one of “those people”, yet I certainly don’t want this, don’t approve, and don’t feel Daley did this for me. He did it for his own, selfish reasons.
And no, I most certainly do NOT feel safer.
In fact, I find the notion that a mayor feels perfectly justified in bulldozing a legal operation in the middle of the night to be EXTREMELY threatening. On what other matter will he find the law inconvenient and just ignore it?
(1) General Aviation facilities are sufficiently insecure that several dozen light planes are stolen every year, and
(2) Stolen planes are routinely used to commit other felonies?
(3) Some airports have failed to implement federally mandated security improvements, and
(4) Some owners are so reluctant to cooperate the FAA must force them to comply?
Sounds like you’re confirming the government’s general aviation concerns rather than denying them.
If it’s easy to steal an airplane, it’s easy to modify it afterward.
There is no evidence that stolen planes are selected at random.
Broomstick, don’t you recognize the irony of someone who behaves as honorably as yourself pointing the finger of moral outrage at anybody, let alone the mayor of Chicago?
I’ve asked myself the same question.
Empty Assurances in Aerospace History
[ul][li]“A coaxial secondary hydraulic system will do fine – it’s not like the frigging engine might fall off.” – Chief Designer of the DC10[/li][li]“Sure they’re brittle, but it’s Florida for chrissakes! How cold can it get?” – Challenger O-ring manufacturer[/li][li]“Oxygen generators are harmless - but don’t list them on the manifest and don’t tell anyone I told you to load them.” – ValuJet Hazardous Materials Coordinator[/li][li]“It was discarded after 30 years of service, yes, but the wiring’s still good as new.” – TWA flight 800[/li][li]“A ‘meter’ is what, three feet?” – Programmer of the Mars Polar Observer[/li][li]“Sticky rudder? Sheeya. PROVE the 737 has a sticky rudder. It’s our most popular model.” – Boeing Aircraft Corporation[/li][li]“Zzzzzzzz.” – Boston Logan baggage checkers one lazy September morning[/li][li]“We’ve analyzed the tape, and we’re certain that piece of insulating foam was too light to have harmed the Columbia.” – NASA safety analysts[/li][li]“It’s not nearly as easy to steal a cropduster as people think.” – Broomstick[/ul][/li][quote]
I am willing to tolerate much more risk in my life than you are.
[/quote]
Even the monkey sometimes slips.
04-09-2003, Page 3: “The Department of Homeland Security, the Transporation Security Administration, the CIA, and the FBI have all stated that Meigs is NOT a security risk and recommended NOT closing it.”
You demonstrated it for both of us (you know, with cites), one of which contradicted you directly: “‘DHS was never consulted regarding the airport’s terror threat potential,’ [Ridge] said”.
n x 0 = 0. If the esteemed opposition is unable to advance their argument by factual, logical or truthful means, numerical advantage is meaningless.
KoalaBear: You’re asking for zero risk. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but life ain’t like that. In fact, you can bet you’ll never get out of it alive.
In life there are risks.
Small aircraft are not zero-risk, but they are not a significant risk.
You are no safer with Meigs closed than you were when it was open.
You are more likely to be blown up by a car-bomb. You are much more likely to be involved in an automobile accident. You could always be run over by a speeding ice cream truck. Someday you will die. There is no such thing as “zero-risk”.
I’d have to say it’s obvious that KoalaBear has a bug up his/her backside in regards to planes. No matter what anyone says it’s twisted to support a fear-based argument.
Seriously, Koala, how do you intend to elminate risk? At what point is the risk level “acceptable” to you? When all the airplanes are gone? Because that’s what it sounds like.
May I point out that one of the articles YOU cited stated clearly that the theft rate has DROPPED this year? Definitely a postive trend and a sign of INcreasing security.
And compare the number of planes stolen vs. the number of cars, trucks, motorcycles, and boats. Mind you - a small boat loaded with explosives blew a hole in the USS Cole, a truck bomb blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. How can you possibly justify slamming general aviation - when NO small plane has EVER been used in a terrorist act - and NOT demand the stricter regulation and/or elmination of such dangerous vehicles as boats and trucks? My goodness - just about ANYONE can rent a truck for Ryder and goodness knows what they’re loading into the back of it!
Typically, it’s drug running. Quite a few are sent to “chop shops” to be rendered into parts, just as stolen cars are.
It’s more a matter of money than will, Koala - just as the airlines have been asking who is going to pay for all the additional security, small airport owners are asking who’s going to pay to put up new fencing, hire security guards, and so forth. Or did you think these things came free somehow?
And what do you base THAT statement on? Are you an A&P? Aero-engineer? Have you ever built so much as a model airplane? No, it is NOT as easy to modify an airplane and have it work as most people think - that’s why experimental homebuilt aircraft have a crash rate about 10 times that of factory-built airplanes, and most of those occur in the initial 40 hours of test-flying the design.
I’d expect not - if you’re running a chop-shop you’ll be looking for something to provide the parts in most demand. If you’re running drugs you want something small that can land off-field in remote areas.
For that matter, you provide no evidence that planes AREN’T stolen at random, either. Just a bald-faced statement.
I fail to see what that statement of yours has to do with Meigs, security, or the temperature of spit in Wichita
They didn’t. Just handling anthrax usually doesn’t make a person seriously ill, much less kill them. (It can cause a very very nasty rash, true, but it’s almost never fatal unless it becomes secondarially infected and the victim is too stupid/stubborn to go to a doctor) It’s inhaling anthrax that kills.
The postal sorting machinery slammed the tainted envelopes around sufficiently to force the spores through the microscopic pores in the envelope paper and into the surronding air, where it could be easily inhaled.
Next time you offer an example please be aware of the facts beforehand, OK? I get tired of explaining reality over and over.
Given the amount of exposure, it’s actually puzzling MORE people didn’t become sick or die. Which supports my statement that it’s a lot harder to kill lots of people with bioweapons than one might initially think.
IF. IF. IF. It actually was NOT dispersed “efficiently”, now was it. AGAIN, it’s not as easy to turn biological agents in to weapons of mass destruction as people think.
In fact, the ONLY one I really fear is smallpox - spreads as easily as the common cold, kills 30-50% of victims, has been used as a bioweapon by the United States Government. Worry much more about that one - and, by the way, it’s not spread by airplanes.
If I’ve behaved honorably then I have a right to point fingers of “moral outrage” at someone who flouts the law, most particularly an elected official. Where are you reading irony into that?
That’s not general aviation.
That’s not general aviation
That’s not general aviation.
That’s not general aviation.
That’s not general aviation.
That’s not general aviation
That’s not general aviation
That’s not general aviation.
In other words, Koala EVERY SINGLE ONE of your arguments “against” general aviation have nothing to do with general aviation. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
You don’t even know the difference between the airlines and general aviation, do you? You can’t tell the difference between a low-orbit shuttle and a Piper Cub, can you? Once again you display ignorance of the subject at hand. How can you expect to be taken seriously?
If you want to argue that space travel or commercial airlines are unsafe your examples might be valid, but they are unrelated to general aviation. They are irrelevant to Meigs field - you couldn’t physically land a DC-10 or 737 there.
If you want to argue Meigs is a security risk you’ll have to use examples from general aviation to demonstrate that, not NASA or the airlines. Try again.
In my opinion, when it’s as difficult to steal a light plane as it is to hijack a commercial airliner the risk will be acceptably low. Closing facilities we don’t need – like Meigs – and imposing stricter security at open general aviation airports would be a very good way to start.
Then there are likely to be plenty of agricultural fitments available on the black market, yes? Perhaps even whole planes constructed entirely of stolen parts?
Very Good, Broomstick. Now you see the principal reason why Meigs was closed – the operational cost of the facility exceeded its benefit to the community. This was true before 9/11, but especially true afterwards. With respect to private airports, those that cannot afford to meet federally mandated security requirements should be closed: you can’t operate a chop shop without a supply of parts.
Nor are you likely to ask your customers if they have felonious intentions for the equipment you’re selling them.
First, you’ve explained that someone who wants a crop duster for some reason can obtain the parts if not the entire aircraft on the black market; second, that private airports are resisting the security reforms necessary to prevent aircraft from being stolen because it’s unprofitable. That’s a strong argument for closing such facilities, and I thank you for making it.
Very Good, Broomstick. If a mail sorter can shake enough anthrax spores through an envelope to kill a man, how many can you kill with a 50-lb bag sprinkled over an urban area from a light aircraft? 750,000 perhaps? More? One stolen plane per year is too many in this day and age; several dozen is inexcusable.
Correction, Broomstick: they’re not arguments “against” anything, but a humorous way to illustrate the hollowness of the statement “It’s not nearly as easy to steal a cropduster as people think.” I didn’t anticipate that you’d prove the emptiness of that assurance for me by explaining how easily such equipment might be obtained on the black market instead.
However, I must admit I like the tendency of the conversation lately: we’re damaging your case more effectively together than I would otherwise be capable of doing alone.
Well, OK, that’s valid opinon. I disagree with it, and I think you’re working from flawed information, but I’ll accept it’s your opinion/
First of all, the risk posed by a light airplane is nowhere near that posed by a commercial jet. By that reckoning we should impose the same security on knives as we do on nuclear weapons. A light plane - by virtue of being small and slow - can never cause as much damage as an airliner.
Secondly - Meigs was not useless, despite the propaganda out of City Hall. As we have mentioned numerous times, over 200 medical flights a year passed through Meigs, it was a base for Coast Guard and fire department rescues and helicoptors, and it allowed light plane traffic to go somewhere else besides O’Hare, Midway, Palwaukee, and Waukegan, all of which are at or above capacity. It was NOT useless or unneeded.
As I have said - security HAS improved at small airports. I know this because I fly into and out of small airports all the time. Is it perfect? No – but that’s partly because the system was built entirely without consideration to terrorist threat and we’re having to adapt extremely quickly. However, I can tell you from my own personal experience flying in several states that GA security HAS improved a great deal over the past year and a half. I can’t land anywhere anymore without someone being on duty at the airport and asking me who I am and what I’m doing. I am now asked for ID routinely which I never was before 9/11. These are real improvements. I’ve told you about stricter practices regarding locks, access to planes, and other securing of hardware. You choose to ignore all this and pretend nothing’s changed. You’re wrong.
Extremely unlikely to be any cropdusters or cropduster parts on the black market. First of all, cropdusters are, as I have said, much more closely guarded than the average general aviation airplane. It’s a very, very small market - a “hot” airplane would stand out far too much. And those airplanes are NOT easy to fly. It’s a high risk profession not just from the airplanes and the low flying but the chemicals used are highly toxic. Pilots involved in cropdusting must undergo training and certification, continuing education, and deal with considerable additional regulations and oversight.
There were a few instances of folks inquiring on the Internet about modifying small planes for cropdusting shortly after 9/11. I know that in several instances they were reported directly to the FBI. In fact, one of my flying e-mail lists had one guy who we had known for years was FBI (as well as a recreational pilot) and we discovered another agent as well. So even areas where this information is available are under surveillance. It’s a little creepy, but that’s modern life, now isn’t it?
The stolen airplanes used by drug runners are snatched, loaded south of the border, used, and then abandoned as quickly as possible. The object is not to get caught and the drug runners view them as disposable commodities. A stolen plane - unless it’s chopped - is extremely traceable. The darn things either broadcast their license number - which would be on a “hot” list - or broadcast no license at all, which ALSO attracts a great deal of attention. Having been aboard a plane with a broken transponder even before 9/11 I can tell you that ATC has always been very interested in folks who aren’t broadcasting their identity. Nowadays, that can get you an F-16 escort, and does. Sure, there have been some planes stolen this past year - I’d also wager they’re recovering more of them, too.
Not true at all. Before Daley was elected Mayor Meigs broke even most years and even showed a profit on some. Daley’s first attack over 15 years ago was to cut the operational hours by 30%. He imposed a multitude of fees, such that it caught more to park a plane at Meigs than it cost to rent one per hour. He abolished the flight school and charter services that used to operate out of there and supply revenue. He kicked out all the tenants - renting storage space to people with airplanes is a MAJOR source of revenue to small airports and that alone almost killed the airport. He did all that so he could then claim that airport “couldn’t make a profit” and provide yet another reason to kill it.
So tell me, Koala, how come a small, 4,000 foot airstrip in the middle of Podunk, Anywhere can manage to make enough money to stay in business but Meigs can’t? It’s not logical, when Meigs had 30,000 flights a year and other, smaller airports turn a profit at a tenth the number of flights? It’s not that Meigs can’t make a profit - it’s not allowed to. Because that would mess with Mr Daley’s master plan.
My home field’s runway is no longer than Meigs. We’re not in an urban center but on the fringes. It generates $125 million a year in revenue and employs 50 people. Meigs could do even better - if the Mayor backed it.
There’s a mayor in Ohio with a very similar downtown on-the-lakefront airport who said on TV Daley was crazy for bulldozing Meigs, that HIS airport was a real powerhouse and money-maker for his city.
Actually, the Feds have been quite helpful in assisting small airports in meeting their new requirements. It’s LOCAL requirements that have been most burdensome.
It is the City of Chicago that required Meigs to install the same level of security as O’Hare and Midway - despite the risks being so much lower. The Feds are not requiring that every pilot be fingerprinted and subjected to a background check and personally approved by a state bureaucrat in order to keep their airplane within a state - that’s been a requirement in a couple of states. And it’s stupid and redundant. The day I went for my flight physical I surendered my privacy to the Federal government and gave them access to any and all of my medical records, driving history, and criminal records (if any). Even prior to 9/11 you couldn’t get a pilot’s license without at least that much of a check on you. The Feds have since gone through their list of pilots again looking for problems. It’s a bunch of small-fry politicians trying to appear to do something when really they’re spending money uselessly on fruitless and duplicative efforts. Better to spend that money on a security guard for a water treatment plant, or a hazmat training course for the fire department.
Uh, NO, that’s NOT what I said. I’ve maintained all along that it would be exceedingly difficult to either obtain a cropduster or obtain the parts that allow for spreading of various things.
You can’t stay in business if you spend money stupidly. No business willingly spends money on ineffectual items.
Here’s the deal - in a lot of places either the local law enforcement aviation unit guards the airport (such as where I fly) or the Civil Air Patrol (that’s an auxillary of the US Air Force, Koala, since I expect you don’t know that either) will do it for free. And that’s usually seen as adequate, since these entities are equipped to communicate directly with the authorities who can do something about the situation, or ARE said authorities. Daley, however, insisted that the guarding of Meigs field be done by paid guards when both the Chicago police department AND the Coast Guard maintained a 24/7 presence at the field. THAT’S REDUNDANT AND STUPID. A waste of resources.
Daley insisted on the same, high-traffic capacity luggage searching machines and systems as at O’Hare and Midway ALSO be installed at Meigs. And that is ALSO a waste of resources. With the small number of people going through it would be entirely possible for a small number of security personnel to thoroughly search each and every passenger and pilot AND their luggage by hand at a fraction of the cost of a full “airline sized” complement of security and the massive machinery that would NEVER be used to anything like even a half of its capacity. Again, a WASTE of resources and forcing Meigs to comply only added to the red ink caused by Daley’s hamstringing policies.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing bad policy.
Probably none. 50lbs is NOTHING. Cropdusters spray by the TON from 10 feet above the ground. 50lbs from a half mile in the air (which you’d have to do to spray, say, City Hall just because the damn skyscrapers are that tall) would either blow away on the wind or be so diluted as to be harmless by the time it reached the ground - if it ever did. Most would wind up on rooftops.
Keep in mind, Koala, that anthrax is a naturally occurring thing. It is present in the ground everywhere. If you get your hands muddly in your garden you likely have an anthrax spore or three on you. One spore alone will not kill you.
And, of course, this statement of yours totally ignores what I said much earlier about the difficult of spreading a powder from a small airplane. Due to the air currents around the plane most of it will wind up right back inside with you in the cockpit unless you really know what you’re doing AND you know how to modify the airplane.
You are also ignoring the fact that calling attention to a bio-dispersal isn’t necessarially the best course for a terrorist - and a small plane WILL be noticed. IF that occurred the first thing that would happen is the area would be cordoned off, decontamination areas set up, tests run, the exposed populace put on antibiotics… result would be very few if any ill or dead. Some fear, yes, but also some reassurance that the safety net worked and some ideas for improving it. Not much of a gain for the bad guys.
Now, if you had 20 female agents load perfume spritzers with the stuff and go around the city misting random locations… well, then you MIGHT get a serious outbreak where people are dying before anyone realizes something is wrong, people tracking the agent all over, no one knows where the source was… MUCH better at causing terror and fear, AND a few deaths. And a hell of a lot cheaper and less bother than training a pilot and stealing and airplane.
Remember - we KNOW who the guys from 9/11 are. We DON’T know who mailed the anthrax. The UnaBomber went uncaught for 20 years because he used small scale tactics and kept a low profile.
No, they are an apalling display of ignorance and you’re inability to construct an argument, due in large part to your lack of knowledge about aviation.
Get educated. You’ll be more entertaining that way.
Flawed reasoning: both can be effectively used as a weapon.
A large plane can take down a skyscraper but a small plane cannot; a small plane can distribute chemicals efficiently but a large plane cannot. To say a steak knife is harmless compared to a scimitar overlooks the fact that both instruments can be used to accomplish a murder. Severing the head is more efficient than slitting the jugular, but in either case the victim would be equally dead.
More flawed reasoning: repetition does not transmute lies into truth.
(1) Meigs was not the linchpin of the City’s emergency response. Closing the airport does not jeopardize the delivery of fire, trauma or rescue services.
(2) O’Hare and Midway are operating below capacity. Travel demand never rebounded to pre-9/11 levels, thus traffic at the city’s two major airports has been significantly reduced.
Profit isn’t the sole consideration, nor the most important one. Compare Meigs to Lincoln Park Zoo, which costs a fortune to operate but doesn’t collect a penny in admission fees. Both are expenses to the Park District, but while LPZ is available for the education and enjoyment of everyone, Meigs was of primary benefit to visitors who considered themselves too rich, glamorous or important to step off a plane anywhere else.
From the citizen’s perspective, if there were 14 alternative zoos in the metropolitan area including two very large zoos in the city proper, it would be ridiculous to spend millions of dollars to operate LPZ as a convenience for the benefit of tourists who consider themselves above the indignity of a brief car or train ride.
You can use one of the City’s other two airports, one of the dozen in surrounding communities, or fly somewhere else if you like, but you won’t be landing at Meigs anymore without a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Get used to it.
That is possibly the most fatuous remark you have ever made. 200 pounds of weaponized anthrax, aerially dispersed on a clear night, is enough to kill three million people. It is the second most efficient means of murdering an entire population in existence.
Of course it ignores your earlier statements. I don’t recognize your opinion as expert, you have a demonstrated history of lying, and the facts contradict you even when you supply the citations.
Now, Broomstick. You asked me to stop pointing out that your paroxysms of hatred are symptomatic of a crippling sexual dysfunction and I’ve honored that. I expect to receive a reciprocal degree of courtesy from you, is that clear?
There is a difference between potential and reality. Just because it has the potential of killing three million people does not mean that it will. It’s like saying, “We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth 100 time over.” What? Are you going to kill everything and then kill them 99 more times? No, of course not. Potential and reality are often not the same things.
Cite, please?
Broomstick has presented credentials that you have no reason to doubt. She has a long history of posting about aviation and you are the only one who says she is not qualified to do so. What makes you right, and everyone else who has interacted with Broomstick completely mistaken about her credentials? Nothing.
Where has she lied? You keep bringing up the CIA. Don’t you think it’s possible – just possible – that she was using hyperbole? Most people can recognize it when they see it.
So you want us to refrain from pointing out that you exhibit all the symptoms of a paranoiac? And that you repeatedly post based on fears brought about by hysterical delusions?
Just curious – How does closing Meigs protect you from SARS?
What’s clear is that you are still directly insulting people in GD, even if you are trying to disguise it. You earned a Pit thread several times over, and god only knows why Broomstick hasn’t given you one.
:wally
If the mayor of my town tried to close down ANYTHING in the dark of night I would be PISSED. I don’t like snake oil politicians.
Forget the airport, it is irrelevant to a discussion of terror attacks. It is the Tower that matters. Meigs was controlled airspace. Closing down the tower only decreases the control of that area. You could just as easily depart from Medway, Aaurora, Palwaukee, Shaumburg, Waukegan, etc…
Although the Sears Tower was supposed to be one of the targets, it takes a really big plane to bring it down. If you tried to load explosives on a smaller plane you would certainly not do it at Meigs and draw all that attention.
This was pure politics at its worst. I can only assume that Chicago will become another cash strapped housing project waiting to implode under its own weight. When I look at Daley I see a clownish Mayor McCheese who doesn’t understand what intrinsic qualities make a city worth living in or a place to visit and spend money.
I wholly dislike opera but I would fight to keep it in my city for the common good. Chicago needs a mayor with more polish.
No, KoalaBear, the average small plane can NOT “distribute chemicals efficiently”. Which is precisely why the Department of Homeland Security has asked the pilots of the United States to be on the look-out for modified small planes and the loading of “unusual cargo”. Sure, the various government agents and authorities are looking, too, but adding 700,000+ citizens to the watch can’t hurt, especially since we’re watching for free. There’s even a hotline to directly report such suspicious things to the authorities.
So… if the government can trust pilots to watch out and report this sort of thing, why can’t you? Perhaps you have a bias against pilots in general?
Then provide cites for your statements instead of regurgitating them in paraphrase.
Doesn’t have to be a “linchpin” to be justified in its existance. 200 medical flights a year, various rescues… to my mind, that’s justification enough. You obviously disagree. Me, I like to have LOTS of options for rescue crews. Otherwise, why not have just one big ambulance barn for the entire city instead of scattering small-scale ambulance bases all over?
The closure DOES seriously interfere with trauma transport to Northwestern Memorial Hospital. I expect they’ll come up with an alternative, but meanwhile it’s an inconvenience at best, and it might be fatal to some folks.
[quote]
Nope, it’s back up to capacity. If anything burps in the system they have to delay/divert flights - as happened this last week when the new radar system went down. Flights went from around 90 per hour (that’s the pre-9/11 level. Actually, it’s the max permitted by the FAA) down to 70. There is NO wiggle room left in the airspace anymore. The FAA also suspended most “hold short” operations as a safety issue - just too many airplanes in one spot for the controllers to keep track of them all, and no one wants to see a runway incursion like the one at Tenerife where two fully loaded 747’s collided on the runway.
When there are delays at O’Hare and Midway the planes either are diverted to other, nearby airports when possible (because not all airplanes are compatible with all airports, and something like a radar failure can affect airports over a wide area) or the planes never take off, leading to delays in other parts of the country and lots of complaints. The system is quite complicated, however - it’s very hard to say that if you squeeze here it’s going to have a particular effect there or there.
[quote]
But you were arguing that the lack of profit on the part of Meigs was a justification for closing it.
[quote]
Actually, Meigs WAS available for “education and enjoyment”. There were viewing areas where the general public could watch the aircraft taking off and landing (these areas were separated by railings and fencing from the operational areas from a safety consideration, moving airplanes being somewhat hazardous to the incautious). This may be an alien notion to you, Koala, but there ARE people who enjoy watching airplanes even if they don’t fly, and in fact there are organizations of folks who indulge in airplane watching much as bird fanciers form bird-watching clubs.
In addition, the Chicago Tuskegee Airmen used to regularly organize events where underpriviledged children would come out to Meigs, learn about airplanes and aviation, get a free ride, and be encouraged to stay in school, study, and pursue a career in aviation if that was their goal or interest. This was provided at no cost to these children, and in many instances resulted in tutoring/mentoring relationships between the pilots and the children. Quite a nice, privately funded program that unquestionably did the city and its citizens some social good. There is more than one airline pilot - and more than one Air Force or Navy top gun - who got their first encouragement from the happenings at Meigs field.
Sure, the program will continue, most likely at Lansing airport - problem is, Lansing is south of the city with no public transportation whatsoever. Meigs you could get to by city bus. That’s a big deal - a lot of the families in the projects don’t own cars so if you can’t get there by bus or train you don’t go. So, for a lot of these kids the program is effectively over for good.
I also take issue with this statement:
As a long-time Chicago pilot, I’d have to say the “rich and glamorous” use Palwaukee. For once thing, the services are better and the FBO really will roll out a genuine red carpet for you if you ask. It’s also much harder for the papperazzi to get to, although Fox32 does get a foot in the door since their helicoptor is based there, or was when I flew out of there (Hanger One, to be specific) Those who want ego-stroking go to Palwaukee.
Those going to Meigs (outside of previously mentioned medical and rescue flights) were small business, the Illinois governor, and various state and Federal legislators. It also served as a major staging area for the yearly Air and Water Show. The aforementioned Chicago Tuskegee airmen. And local pilots, such as myself.
Oh, yes, myself - Rich? No. Glamorous? Hardly. Important? I’m a secretary. Wow, THAT’s a rich, glamourous, important position in life, now isn’t it? And no, I’m not doing this on my husband’s money - he earns about a 1/4 of what I do.
Me thinks, Koala, that you have a bias against pilots in general. I don’t know what sort of “lifestyle” you think I’m enoying as one, but frankly, it isn’t what most people think. I’m wearing ratty sneakers and frayed blue jeans to the airport, flying airplanes where the seat upholstry really is repaired with duct tape, and doing without a lot of fancy toys my peers enjoy in order to afford my expensive little hobby. Personally, I feel it is worth making some small sacrifices in my life in order to fly. But I, and most other small plane pilots, are not rolling in the dough, “rich”, or glamourous. We’re secretaries, nurses, steelworkers, cops (retired and active), and other “blue collar” or low-level “white collar” types. Yes, we do have a lawyer at our field - but he’s not some free-wheeling type in Armani suits making millions. He’s a small-town generalist who does mostly estate planning for retirees - not an area you make a whole lot of money. Yes, we do have a couple of doctors - but an internist doesn’t make as much as people think they do.
So, Koala, I have to wonder if some of your hostility towards myself and other pilots is based on a perceived class issue. If it is… ask yourself why you, yourself, don’t make enough money to do the things I do (that is - be able to afford it, not necessarially to actually do it). If you dismiss Meigs as something for only the “rich”… well, are you saying that the poor college student watching the airplanes take off and land (that was me in 1983 when I moved to Chicago) shouldn’t aspire to one day being in the cockpit? Are you saying that the little kid from the projects shouldn’t be exposed to that side of life and society? What are you saying to that child - “We’re closing this down because this is only for the priviledged and you aren’t priviledged”? Sounds like a slap in the fact to me - might as well tell that child not to dream of flying because they not only aren’t “priviledged” right now, you’re saying they never will be. And that’s a viciously condescending attitude from my viewpoint. Personally, I much prefer the Chicago Tuskegees’ attitude of “Kid, if you stay in school, get a good job, and work hard you, too, can enjoy this.” MUCH more positive. Show them that an honest life and honest work can get you something in life. Wow, what a concept.
Where do you get this? I’ve ridden trains and busses in Chicago every working day for the last… oh, gosh, it’s 20 years now. I don’t find public transporation an “indignity”, nor do several hundred thousand other commuters in Chicago. Take a look at who rides the bus downtown on Michigan Avenue - fur coats and jewels all over the place. Even the rich ride the CTA.
Car ride? It’s not the driving that’s a pain in the butt, it’s the parking. Parking in downtown Chicago is insufficient and expensive. Sure, drive my car downtown - great, then where do I put it while I’m at work/shopping/whatever?
You really like that “sticking it to the rich” aspect of the whole thing, don’t you? Well, truth is that if I fly into someplace like O’Hare (which I am legally allowed to do) in my little beat-up old airplane it’s going to delay and inconvenience a couple hundred other folks because of the effect slow planes have on heavy airliner traffic. Ditto for Midway, it’s only marginally less crazy. Remember that next time your 747 experiences delays or is in a holding pattern when you’re returning from your next vacation or business trip. But, of course, that doesn’t matter - it’s much more important to stick it to the “rich”, the “glamourous”, the “former users of Meigs”.
How kind of you to permit me to fly “somewhere else”. :rolleyes: Truth is, Koala, you don’t control where I can and can not fly. That really seems to bug both you and Mayor Daley.
Let’s see, you have to
“weaponize” the anthrax - which apparently is not something terribly easy to do. I mean, that whole “anthrax in the mail” thing, while horrifying, did not result in mass casualities.
“aerially disperse” it - which I’ve already explained is NOT as easy as dumping a bag of dust out the window. You’ll have to modify the airplane.
“on a clear night” - hon, Meigs is by a BIG LAKE. “Clear nights” are a minority. You’ve either got fog/lake weather OR a good breeze coming off the water, either of which is going to seriously complicate your proposed terrorist attack. Then there are the nights when the prevailing westerlies will send the wind back over the water - that is, over a hundred miles of uninhabited open water. You might kill some fish (might) and an odd sailboat crew, but c’mon…!
Could it be done? In theory. But there are so many OTHER, easier, and more certain ways to kill people… including truck bombs and suicide bombers… that this is an unlikely sceanario.
And I have asked you time and time again what YOUR credentials in aviation are. Between your ignorant statements and your utter refusal to give any credentials I can only conclude you have none. Which gives you all the credibility of a flat-earther discussing the curvature of the horizon.
As for your insinuations about my sexuality (again!) - that’s out of line in Great Debates. Again, you are invited to the Pit if you wish to play those games. I fail to see what my (or anyone’s) sex life has to do with either the closure of Meigs field, the idiocy of Mayor Daley, terorism, national security, aviation, or your inability to paricipate in a debate according to the posted rules of this forum.
Well, between helping to arrange airborne medical transport for an elderly disabled woman, family emergencies that sent me off to Michigan for a bit (which is why there’s a several day gap in my posting on the Dope), my husband off to Tennessee and Virginia, and a couple other more minor disasters I’ve been a little busy these past two weeks and just didn’t have time to waste on the likes of someone like Koala in a Pit rant. I mean, if I’m going to do one, I’m going to do it right.
No doubt Koala will be gleeful to know that the cost of all of the above chaos will keep me on the ground at least a month, because the only place we could draw extra money from is the flying account. “Rich” my sweet patootie, I can only wish…!
My mom took part in an “aerial burial” back in the '70s. Of course ashes swirled around the cockpit, plus she lost her brand new Ray Bans when the slipstream caught them. There was a stylish fish swinning around, I suspect.
In other “dispersal” news, I just read in Flying or AOPA Pilot about a crash that claimed four lives. They were dispersing the ashes of the pilot’s mother. Apparently the ashes came back into the cockpit and the pilot lost control. Pretty ironic.
[nitpick] Broomstick, your last quote was from Demise’s post.
[/nitpick]
At any rate, Meigs was not a terror threat. The only reason it was closed was because Daley A) wants to build something from which he can make a handsome personal profit, or B) because Daley has an irrational fear of small aircraft, hubris, and perceived authority that he is above the law or the democratic process.
It’s too bad for those people whose flights are delayed because of light aircraft operating at a major airport like O’Hare. Small-aircraft pilots have the right to fly into LAX, but we don’t. Why tie up the commercial system costing the commercial carriers millions of dollars, when Santa Monica is so close? While I enjoy living under the traffic SMO’s traffic pattern I can understand how some people (as noted in the AOPA article) might not like living under the pattern for Midway. I think Friends of Meigs Field and other interested parties should get together and point out the disadvantages of closing Meigs and the illegal way it was done. I’m thinking, some television spots around election time. (And of course, criminal charges should be pressed for Daley’s violation of state and federal laws.)
Me, either. You know, I never actually used Meigs myself, it was the WAY in which it was shut down that ticked me off.
By the way - Da Mayor is seeking the authority for the city of Chicago to condemn and acquire land in DuPage county for the purposes of expanding O’Hare. That’s right - a Cook County elected official is trying to seize land in another Illinois county.
This whole mess just keeps getting snarkier and snarkier…
Yeah. I was listening to some Gary controllers (they’ve hired one of the Meigs guys, actually) who were saying how O’Hare and Midway are both arguing the other guys should have control over the VFR traffic corridor - both groups feel they’re too busy and should be concentrating on taking care of the IFR traffic into and out of the big airports.
Rumor has it Daley wanted the airport closed but to keep the tower open for traffic control. The FAA said no deal - if you want a tower you have to have an airport to go with it. But I have no solid cites on that. Intriguing thought, though.
Yep. That’s Daley. He’s forgotten that it’s business that provides jobs and tax money - both directly and through the taxes on the employees’ income. It’s all about tourism - but only certain kinds of tourism.
Yeah, see, that’s how I feel about golf courses – don’t like the game myself, think the courses are a waste of space and source of pollution and evironmental degradation, but I recognize that they do serve a purpose in the community and many of my fellow citizens value them highly. Therefore, I support their right to exist and recognize the benefits a country club/gold course can bring to an area. If folks are going to live heaped up in dense piles they have to develop some tolerance for activities they themselves may not enjoy but are desired or required by their neighbors.
You accuse me of making disguised insults and then hide behind an icon in order to call me a putz?!
My, the SDMB has attracted a quite a few aviation enthusiasts lately.
I don’t think so. If the airport is closed, it isn’t adding or removing planes from the sky, so it doesn’t need a tower to manage that traffic. Chicago’s airspace is coordinated by regional ATC, so for that purpose it doesn’t matter whether Meigs is open or not.
More importantly it takes a small plane to efficiently disperse a chemical or biological toxin, which is one of the reasons general aviation isn’t off the hook.
Actually it was more like evicting boorish houseguests: You don’t let them live there until the court decides they have to go, you kick them out and let them try to sue their way back in. The more I hear about the matter, the more I’m convinced that’s why Meigs was closed the way it was.
The quality of life in Chicago or any other city is determined by a universe of factors including housing, schools, businesses, parks, transportation, cultural institutions, medical care, cost of living, crime, roads, and sanitation to name a few. The absence of a lakefront airstrip isn’t going to cause anybody to sell their condominium and move to Detroit.
I doubt you’d put up much of a fight if there were 14 opera houses in your neighborhood already including two very large ones on your own block.
Saying ‘the average small plane cannot distribute chemicals efficiently’ is like saying ‘the average large plane cannot fly at supersonic velocity’: the objection is irrelevant in either case.
What was your license number again?
Then perhaps you can explain how.
I don’t believe you.
Used to? Are underpriveleged children too good to fly out of alternative airports now?
They can rent a bus you know: schools, churches and tour groups do it all the time.
Good. Then the rich and glamorous won’t have to slum it by landing at Meigs anymore, leaving only those with an exaggerated sense of self importance to cope with the loss.
Thank you for illustrating the point.
Methinks, Broomstick, that the tables got turned all of a sudden and that’s what you’re mad as hell about.
Had the Mayor announced he was closing the airport at the end of the week, the “Fiends of Meigs” would have gotten a court injunction to hold the facility open while they postponed the inevitable for another five to ten years. By destroying the runway, the Mayor guaranteed that if an injunction was obtained to prevent the city from redeveloping the land, it would lock the airport closed while the group spends itself into the ground trying to get it open again.
What can I say but <Nelson>Ha, Ha!</Nelson>?
Actually I’m hostile to anyone who is fundamentally dishonest – if they happen to be pilots, secretaries or what have you that’s coincidental rather than causal.
You’re missing the point, Broomstick, or more likely just pretending not to see it. You don’t request a cease-fire (“we’ve already been warned by a mod to make this less personal”) and then make remarks like these at every opportunity thereafter:[ul][li]You’ve proven yourself more ignorant than average when it comes to aviation…[/li][li]in fact, you’re cheap entertainment…[/li][li]Geez, will you get yourself educated? [/li][li]I’d have to say it’s obvious that KoalaBear has a bug up his/her backside…[/li][li]Once again you display ignorance of the subject at hand…[/li][li]they are an apalling display of ignorance and you’re inability to construct an argument, due in large part to your lack of knowledge about aviation…[/li]Get educated. You’ll be more entertaining that way.[/ul]Your sex life has equally as much to do with the closure of Meigs field, the idiocy of Mayor Daley, terrorism, national security, aviation, or your inability to conduct an honest debate. I checked the ‘posted rules of this forum’ by the way, and the only one I could find was ‘don’t be a jerk’: my remarks are as appropriate as yours, so you might want to try a less hypocritical approach to negotiating detente.