Part One, Of Two
While we hate to dwell on the negative, there were some real
downers, aviation-wise, in 2005. Sure... "stuff" happens, but a few
folks seemed to go out of their way to create problems for the
world of aviation. Be it ignorance, arrogance or just plain
incompetence, these were the folks that made our lot a whole lot
more difficult and immeasurably injured the aviation world in the
past year.
Shame on them...
Jim Schaeffer, Troy Martin
It was the little C150 that scared the
bejesus out of Washington, DC. Lititz, PA, resident
Heyden "Jim" Schaeffer, 69, and 36-year old Troy Martin of Akron,
PA, were heading to a NC airshow... and got a little lost in the
process... creating one of the most traumatic black-eyes the GA
world has ever encountered.
After flying within 3 miles of the White House, this dubious duo
set in motion a number of actions and a firestorrm of anti-aviation
sentiment that are still plaguing us many months later. It was one
of the single most devastating blows the aviation world had to deal
with... and it was wholly unnecessary.
Drunk Plane Thief Phillippe Patricio
As if we didn't need any more trouble than we had already, a 20 year-old Connecticut student pilot
certainly piled on the misery. Phillippe Patricio got
drunk, and conned a couple of his buddies into coming along while
he stole a C172 and headed off on a multi-state joyride that
painted the aviation world with a pretty embarrassing brush.
Phillippe Patricio already faced charges of possessing stolen
property, reckless endangerment and resisting arrest, charges filed
in Westchester County, New York, where Patricio landed on a
blacked-out taxiway, when CT authorities added felony charges
of circumventing airport security, reckless endangerment, unlawful
use of an aircraft, operating an aircraft under the influence,
delivering alcohol to a minor (his passengers were both 16,
according to police) and careless flying.
Patricio admitted to crawling through a hole in the fence at
Danbury, CT, Municipal Airport and stealing a Cessna 172. He flew
through the night, landing on a darkened taxiway at Westchester
County Executive Airport only when his fuel was nearly exhausted --
where police tested him for alcohol consumption, Patricio's
blood-alcohol content was reportedly 0.15 percent -- almost twice
the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle in New York.
At a time when concerns about GA threats and security issues
were getting out of hand, this bozo made the matter far worse and
hurt us all.
NM Senator Pete Domenici (R), NM Senator Jeff Bingaman (D)
When Will Rogers opined that "thank God we're not getting all
the government we're paying for," he could have been talking about
Domenici (below) and Bingaman... whose aero-ignorance seemed to set
new records in 2005.
These elected Aero-Bozos, looking for a few cheap headlines at
our expense decided that there just wasn't enough ignorant hysteria
about the non-existent threat of General aviation... so they
pandered to the media and other aero-haters and came up with one of the most Draconian and
un-American proposals that GA faced in the past
year.
These guys filed two amendments to a Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill in the U.S. Senate. A particularly
severe and positively Draconian amendment put forth by New Mexico
Senators Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D-pictured below),
called for a $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a
five-year loss of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies
an aircraft in a manner that violates the Washington, D.C.,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes the
evacuation of a Federal building or any other public property...."
(The FRZ is the 15-nm-radius "no fly" circle around Washington,
D.C., that includes the Capitol and the White House.)
It was a stupid move designed for purely political reasons and
marked these two characters as serious enemies of the aviation
world. If you live within their jurisdiction, we strongly suggest
that you vote someone other than either of these two clowns the
next time you visit a voting booth.
John Loftus
John Loftus drove us
nuts in 2005 with some of the most narrow-minded and poorly
conceived punditry we've had the displeasure to witness.
For those of us who had to suffer through some of the wildly
inaccurate and speculative reporting that appeared on various
networks as a result of that foolish ADIZ transgression, few of the low moments exceeded those
associated with a Fox News pundit by the name of John
Loftus.
Loftus, apparently not a fan of private aviation (and based on
his bio, without much of an aviation background), intoned much
about the dangers imposed on the public by GA... based on his
credentials as a former member of the Justice Department. In
addition to some terribly unflattering things uttered about GA,
Loftus (billed as a "a security analyst and FOX News contributor")
told Fox News that, "Almost nothing worked — this small plane
should never have gotten within four miles" (of the Capitol).
Loftus also was credited with statements that asserted that the
plane was too small to puncture the walls of the building and a
"running evacuation" of the federal buildings should not have been
called. Loftus added pronouncements about the danger presented by
small GA aircraft... while neglecting the other means by which
common transportation systems (Ryder trucks, for instance) might be
abused as far more effective weapons delivery systems.
ANN thinks that Loftus was WAY off base (to put it mildly).
While it was but a matter of time before someone made such
sickening statements (advocating the seizure of errant aircraft and
the killing -- via shoot-down -- of transgressing aviators), the
fact that someone actually said something like this out-loud, and
on an internationally televised broadcast, was a new low in media
punditry and a dangerous position for a former Justice official to
take. It is also far less than the "Fair and Balanced" approach
touted by Fox News... and we're quite inclined to abandon this news
channel if they keep employing off-base pundits like Loftus.
Dimitri Vassilaros
Along with John Loftus, Vassilaros further proved that ignorance
knew few limits among those who decided they were qualified to
opine about aviation security and the GA world. One surmises that
the GA world should be thankful that only a few fairly visible
pundits had spoken publicly about a perceived need to kill pilots
who blunder into the Washington ADIZ. While this does not speak
well for the gene pool associated with some pundits and columnists,
both cases were shown to be short on supportable fact, often
riddled with error, and long on myopic, hysterical
chest-thumping.
In another regrettable low, Columnist Dimitri Vassilaros lead a bit of
literary fear mongering with the opening line, "The Cessna 150
should have been shot down."
Surprisingly, despite Vassilaros' wish to kill GA pilots and
passengers, portions of his column actually refute his arguments
with a passage/quote that states, "'These guys were flat-out
idiots,' said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow in international
studies at The Heritage Foundation think tank. 'A reputable
terrorist would not do something like this.'
Carafano believes even with a so-called dirty bomb, or biological
or chemical weapons, damage would have minimal."
While ANN is not aware of what qualifies as a "reputable
terrorist" these days, Vassilaros' argument grows weaker as the
column progresses, with yet another barely supportive quote, "'It's
a tough one,' said Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution. 'I do not have a real strong view. It was unlikely to
pose major threat, but it still could not be ruled out. We cannot
be evacuating buildings all the time. A release of chemicals could
have killed a lot of people.'"
Once again, a weak and easily countered opinion is used to
support a faltering argument. The final caveat, though, is
bizarre... citing the September 1994 incident in which a Cessna
flown by Frank Eugene Corder (in yet another Cessna 150...)
impacted at the base of the White House, intentionally. In this
case, like the '02 Charles Bishop/Tampa building crash, the damage
to structures and property was minimal and the very limited nature
of such aircraft (as weapons systems) was visibly demonstrated.
GA's main defense revolves around the FACT that it's not that we
think that light aircraft are not much good for doing serious
damage as weapons of mass destruction, it's that the evidence
proves it... repeatedly.