Why Robert F. Kennedy's GA Comments Should Be Challenged

By ANN Senior Correspondent Kevin "Hognose" O'Brien

We at Aero-News stand accused of partisanship, or worse, because we ran a story on RFK, Jr.'s comments on the aviation "threat" to New York's Indian Point power plant.

That was a NEWS STORY. It wasn't OPINION (THIS is, most definitely, opinion). It was a factual report of something said by a sufficiently prominent celebrity that you were going to hear about it somewhere; better that you hear about it from us, at least the aviation content.

That we report a celebrity's words, doesn't mean that we support him. For crying out loud, people, we report what Daley has to say. That doesn't mean that Pete Combs and I are going to take a Cat D-9 and a case of longnecks and go rip up FlaBob on Thursday.  No more does our reporting the meanderings of this latest squib in the Kennedy bloodline indicate our approval of what he said. So here's a look at what he said -- and at him -- and I'll tell you what *I* think.

Kennedy's point was that the Indian Point reactor near New York is insecure; in the parts we reported, insecure against aerial attack. First, remember who he is: a lawyer, hostile to nuclear power in general, and working to hamstring or close Indian Point, in particular. (Don't take my word for it. Google "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr" and "nuclear power" which is how I formed that conclusion). He thinks nuclear power is a "Crime Against Nature," and he's vain enough to think that there ought to be a court, and he ought to be prosecutor and judge: a green version of the Red Queen.

He's nuts.

He isn't exactly a fan of President Bush, either. The lack of "safe, renewable energy" is somehow Mr.. Bush's fault, as if the President's duty is to play King Canute with the laws of physics. So it might be reasonable to conclude that Kennedy has reasons to bash Indian Point and Bush, and the opportunity to hit both with one rhetorical suicide bomb must have been irresistible to the guy.

Kennedy is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. So let me point out some facts that non-flying friends or family may ask you about, if they get sucked into RFK, Jr's Reality Distortion Field.

Kennedy: "No containment structure over the spent fuel pools" The spent fuel pools themselves are concrete and steel, and inside the facility (not out in the air). No practical aerial attack could do much of value (to the attacker) with the fuel.

Kennedy: "it has still not been proven that the containment domes... could withstand the impact of a ... plane...." (I thought he was just a fan of containment structures?)

Fact: Independent research result: "no parts of a Boeing 767-the engine, the fuselage, or the wings, nor the jet fuel-will enter the containment building, used fuel storage pool, used fuel dry storage facilities, or the used fuel transportation containers. This means that no radiation will leak from these structures even if hit by a Boeing 767 at the maximum plausible force and vulnerability."

As far as a smaller plane, loaded with explosives or not, let's look at some real-world impacts, shall we?

1) A disgruntled pilot attempted to settle President Bill Clinton's hash in 1994 with a death dive on the White House in a typical trainer, a Cessna 150. This caused an unsightly smudge on the White House wall. There may have been a divot on the lawn too -- the groundskeepers took care of it too quickly to be sure.

2) In one "successful" suicide attack, a pilot set his own house on fire by crashing into it. Is a wood-framed home equivalent to a nuclear containment vessel?

3) A suicidal teenager rammed a Tampa office building with a Cessna 172. He did break a window (as well as his fool neck) and made a thorough mess of the office he hit. I understand it took a whole day to clean up.

4) Numerous Kamikaze attacks illustrated the worst case of what we could expect from "a smaller plane loaded with explosives." A typical Kamikaze, the Yokosuka D4Y "Judy," weighed in at around five tons, and was equipped with real, ship-sinking bombs, but the Kamikazes generally failed. As suicide attackers, they were much more effective at suicide than attack. And they were trying to attack ships, essentially boxes of relatively thin steel. The reinforced-concrete containment at Indian Point is far thicker and stronger than the superstructure, deck, or hull of most naval vessels.

5) Unlike the Kamikaze described above, which was designed as a dive bomber, a  GA aircraft is lousy for attacking anything. A Cessna 172 holds a mere 50 gallons of avgas -- and that's if the original owner sprung for the long-range tanks. Gasoline, as fuel-air vapor, is the deadliest explosive available to the general public without scrutiny, but the problem with the 172 is the limited amount of it you can get into the plane and still be able to take off. Most light planes weigh less than the hybrid car Mr. Kennedy would like you to drive (the normal gross weight of a C172 is about 2,400 lbs), and have less interior volume than many 2-seat sports cars (even four-seater planes!). A much deadlier bomb can be delivered by, for example, Mr. Kennedy's Porsche.

Kennedy's demand for a "no-fly zone," then, stands on a fundamental misconception; that airplanes threaten innocents via the nuclear powerplant. His suggestion of anti-aircraft weapons is even counterproductive: in Iraq, hardly any civilians were harmed by our bombing, but hundreds died due to the what-goes-up-must-come-down nature of anti-aircraft weaponry. Given the strength of the containment, a shot-down aircraft could cause more casualties in a populated area than it might if it carried out its strike.

His next suggestion, that a President Kerry is more likely to give him what he wants (no-fly zone? AA weapons? A closed power plant?) is also a bit strange. In our Republic, even the President's powers are constrained by many rules and forces. And candidate Kerry's stated policy is to keep current reactors, including Indian Point, operating.

Kennedy, who got started in environmental law with a 1984 heroin conviction, comes off as a hypocrite. While he wants to get YOU out of a car and onto a bicycle, forthwith ("alternate energy": back to muscle power), he was reduced to stammering when Hannity and Colmes called him on his use of private jets in 2003, and he's not above climbing into Harrison Ford's helicopter for a few hours of converting jet fuel into environmental hysteria. Hey, he's a GA guy -- for him, anyway. Not for YOU, commoner.

So if we look at Kennedy's history, he has a record of: 1) reflexive opposition to nuclear power 2) hostility toward President Bush 3) hysterical environmental charges and over-the-too hyperbole, and: 4) hypocrisy

I mean, this is a guy who scolds us on health and safety, but has a history of shooting up drugs. We're supposed to defer to his judgment?

The airplanes-over-Indian Point threat is not real; it's a bogus offshoot of a pre-existing agenda. In the end, you'd be significantly safer hanging out in the control room at Indian Point, than riding in a car with RFK's Uncle Ted. No matter WHAT people are doing with Cessnas overhead.

FMI: RFK Jr. Blasts Lack Of Air Security Over Nuke Site (ANN 11/01/04)