The Laughing Wolf

A key factor is, as noted in my other space story today, getting off this mudball and into orbit. That is the key to doing anything, and it is the area where the most improvement is needed. A NASA launch takes months, or even years to plan. Defense and commercial applications need to go right now. What they need is something almost like an airline schedule, and NASA has nothing that can or will meet that goal. This is a hot issue, and I have taken part in some frank and extremely informal discussions on this very subject with members of DoD, who were not shy about expressing their opinion of same.

I also wish I could have been at another, more formal, meeting in which DoD and NASA discussed some research of mutual interest. DoD was looking to get it done within about five years. NASA was talking at least a 15-year program that could run out longer. The descriptor of the DoD faces I got was priceless.

DoD research tends to be based on more immediate needs and manufacturing cycles. NASA research is based off academic research, in which careers can be expended on essentially one major experiment. Academics tend to think in 20- to 30-year cycles based off tenure, funding, etc. That difference does cause a lot of problems when commercial, defense, and academic cultures meet. It is also a large factor in the problems NASA has with real space commercialization.

On the other hand, I believe that XCOR, Scaled Composites, and some other companies competing in the X-Prize might just want to read this document and start pitching their wares to a big potential customer. One hopes, at any rate, that the Air Force will look commercial and off-the-shelf for such an important challenge.

-30-

This was a top-down thing implemented in the Goldin years, where one did everything possible to avoid the wrath of Dan. If anything you did created any controversy, or just plain hit him wrong, the consequences could be and were catastrophic for career or job. NASA was concerned that criticism would translate to lack of Congressional support, and that would in turn translate into even more funding cuts. Given that the administrator was all but challenging the administration to give even more budget cuts to the agency, this was a real concern.

The real translation problem, however, was in how this translated inside the agency. Safety First rapidly became something else. It became a call to eliminate all accidents, injury, and “goofs.” This, in turn, led to not doing anything that could cause these or could be perceived or presented as any sort of failure. Which, in turn, led to a zero defect environment in which the true message of safety was lost. When you issue first aid kits without band aids and such in them because it is contra safety policy, you have lost all touch with reality.

The net result was an environment were delay or checking was bad, because that was a failure. It was/is an environment where subordinates don’t always give managers the information that is needed out of fear, or a desire to suppress anything that might be even slightly negative. It was/is an environment where managers don’t ask questions, because they really don’t want to know the answers.

NASA has re-embraced the zero defect/perfect safety meme in a new way. The net result is that launches may not resume even next year under this policy. While NASA is being pushed to launch sooner, they have the perfect excuse not to launch and I would be surprised if they did not take it. Make more modifications to the orbiter, make elaborate and costly – and likely ineffective – backup plans, and do everything possible to make launches/missions accident proof.

The problem is, there is no such thing as perfect safety. There is no such thing as zero defects. In point of fact, there is a good deal of evidence that zero defect environments are self-defeating. They tend to create larger problems when they do happen, and create a stagnant environment mired in the past, with no growth, and no hope for the future. The net result in any sort of free market is that competition comes along, innovates, and takes over the market.

In this case, this is not a bad thing. NASA has introduced no new launch vehicles, or even significantly new technology, since before the Shuttle was rolled out. Note that I am talking launch technology here, because there have been some pretty neat things happening with spacecraft and probe systems, and some of the advanced propulsion is most interesting. But, we have to get to orbit. NASA has produced a lot of paper, voluminous charts and briefings, and no new systems for quite some time.

This means that the time is ripe for those wanting commercial launch and innovative launch technologies. The new space policy seems to set a good stage for this, and one can only hope that the White House will be remotely friendly towards an improved regulatory environment. Because if we want to get to the stars, we first have to get to orbit. NASA is already stagnant in this area, and the doors of competition have been opened. Let’s see how a stagnant zero defect environment does against some unfettered competition. Let the games begin.

-30-

I counted myself fortunate that none of my friends was on that flight, but as a teacher it hurt to lose our first teacher in space. As a friend, it hurt that a friend of a friend was on that flight. What hurt even more was how few heads rolled over the loss.

Columbia found me on the beach, at home not long out of my job at NASA. Sad to say, the duty of telling my former NASA boss fell to me that morning. I called him and told him to get the television on as soon as I heard “contingency” that day, for I knew then that there was no hope.

The ache is still there, for few if any heads have rolled over what happened. Poor management, poor decisions, and the damnable politics yet again. I had worked that mission off and on for several years as it developed, and am thankful that I really did not know the crew well.

Again, it was a given that we would lose more as a matter of statistical probability. Again, it was not covered or planned for in any meaningful way. NASA was still so wrapped up in lip service to safety and the creation of a zero-defect culture that they failed the test of true safety and planning. Zero accidents, no lost workdays, and tons of lip service to crew safety came home to roost.

The fact is, going to space is risky, as is all exploration. Accidents happen, deliberate actions happen, and things go wrong. Exploration has never been easy, safe, or comfortable. Exploration is risky, it is dangerous, and it is not terribly comfortable no matter how much you work at it. You plan for the worst, hope for the best, and find out as you go how much reality differs from the ideal. You get cold, wet, hungry, thirsty, hurt, tired, and more at the best of times; equipment does not work as advertised; and, the best laid plans aft gang awry. It has been that way from the most ancient of days, yet there are always those willing to take the risk, endure the discomforts and hardships, and put it out there with no true expectation of reward.

Why is one of the most asked questions, but if you have to ask you can never truly understand the answer. I like the why not response, but there are others that apply equally as well.

Moving into space will be no different from exploring the next valley, climbing a mountain, reaching for the poles, or exploring the new world. It will be dangerous, uncomfortable, and imperfect. This fact is not brought out as it should be, and that is in and of itself one of the most dangerous shortfalls of the push to explore.

Part of this fault lies with NASA, for the comfortable lies it tells by omission. When pressed, NASA will admit that there is always a chance of failure and death, but immediately throws on tons of safety and preparedness fertilizer to complete cover the original point. NASA never willingly mentions such, often even to itself, and pretends that the shuttle is as safe as an airplane. Indeed, NASA goes to great lengths to assure the public that safety comes first and to create the false image that there is no risk.

Part of the fault lies with those who push space exploration and exploitation. We often cater to the public perception that it is safe as rain, that it is all just good clean fun. When pressed, we will admit that there is always a risk, and pour on tons of safety fertilizer to cover an uncomfortable point.

The fact is, that no matter who does it, when it is done, and how it is done, there will always be risk. We are going to lose vehicles, outposts, and people. We need to be honest about that, and to be different we should be upfront about it in our discussions and debates.

People, exploring space is not safe. Exploiting space is not safe. We are going to have accidents, and people will die. Just as automobile accidents kill a fair number every day, just as trains crash or derail and kill people, and just as airplanes fall from the sky, spacecraft are going to go boom. This will happen in one of the most unforgiving environments we have ever explored.

The deserts, the mountains, and the roaring deeps have nothing on space. You have temperature extremes that make desert life seem like paradise. You have radiation extremes that can cook you as fast as a microwave. Most of all, you have a vacuum that will provide a race between explosive decompression and freezing in the event of a suit leak, much less a vehicle accident.

So, accept it and put it honestly on the table. People are going to die, some in space and some on the ground. Others will be hurt or maimed, property lost or damaged, and other bad things will happen. We need to face it, and most of all we need to be sure that the average person on the street understands it.

They sure are not going to do so from NASA. When anything happens, there is much breast beating, things stop for a year or three, and then start up again pretty much as they were except for a lot of new restrictions and mandatory seminars. If the automotive industry operated in that fashion, we would be lucky to have oxcarts right now. If the aviation industry operated that way, we would still be using ships as the only means of intercontinental travel. If the shipping industry operated that way, we might still be stuck in one little valley in Africa.

When sailing ships were lost, others went out and eventually we learned and mapped currents, reefs, and land; and, we learned a lot about weather and being smart enough to run before the storm when need required. We learned about ship design, materials, and more. When planes crashed, we did not ground them all but instead kept flying and figured out not only what happened but used the combined knowledge to build new generations of craft. In less than 100 years we went from a short hop to the moon. We did not do this by wailing, restrictions, groundings, and meetings. We did it by figuring solutions and taking multiple approaches.

We did it by being honest. No one pretended that sailing was risk free. No one claimed that planes were safe, and the early days of aviation proved that they were not. No one claimed that finding out what lay beyond the next mountain was going to be a carefree lark.

This is the crux of my problem with the Day of Remembrance, or celebrating each anniversary. I will honor those that died, but I find that most of what goes on is a dishonor to them and what they were trying to do. It cheapens their loss and contributes to a thing, a system, that deceives the public and does a disservice.

To all those that have died, in space and on the ground, I salute you this day. You followed a great and worthy tradition, knew the risks, and took them anyway. You worked to push back the frontiers on many levels, and I honor you for it.

To all others, I say end the lie. Let’s be honest about the risks, the dangers, and the probabilities. We will lose more, for there is no such thing as perfect safety. We will work to minimize the risk and the losses, for we owe it to ourselves and to those who go where we currently cannot. We will make it a risk, and not a gamble. Yet, in the end, we will lose more. To pretend otherwise dishonors us all.

-30-

Point 1: ISS. The goal is to complete all obligations to the ISS and the international partners by 2010. This is to free up budget resources and to get out from under a project that has busted every budget projection. I rather suspect that if it could be shelved, it would, but the current international agreements are binding. The President has had a special place in his heart for the ISS and its management ever since he was stuck with a check that was some 48 billion more than he had been told. There is also the fact that the ISS can’t do what was promised, will most likely continue to go over budget, and will continue to be a problem for NASA. If we can finish up our obligations, then we can claim success and walk away.

Point 1A: Shuttle. The goal is to return it to flight as a stopgap until something better can be created. Not a bad idea at all, though the proposed plan leads to

Point 2: Crew Exploration Vehicle. The new vehicle is supposed to be able to go from the Earth to the ISS, and from Earth orbit to the moon and beyond. The problem is, making a one-size-fits-all vehicle like this means that it will be a large and expensive project that will do none of its several jobs well. That is almost precisely how we ended up with the current shuttle, with all of its expense and problems. There is also the fact that NASA has yet to successfully design and test any advanced transportation system since the Shuttle. There are lots of neat presentations, lots of documentation, and a bunch of delaminated fuel tanks that never worked. In other words, no successfully bent metal, and very little bent metal period.

Point 3: Return to the Moon. This is a worthy goal, and NASA has plenty of time to achieve it. The President is correct when he sites the resources and advantages of a presence on the moon, even though he is not pointing out anything that Robert Heinlein and others didn’t point out 50 or so years ago.

I’m not going to go into the sub-bullets here, but they are worth reading. They actually do make sense for a government-focused operation, and even have some relevance outside of government.

To the surprise of some, I am going to come out and say that I like the proposal. It is reasonable for a governmental program; it will facilitate the re-organization and re-focusing of NASA; it shows far more fiscal soundness that I have come to expect from this Administration, with a workable and realistic budget plan; and, most of all, it ignores free enterprise.

That’s right, I am happy it ignores free enterprise. The fact is, that NASA has never been comfortable with its obligations to commercialize space, and in fact has done a great deal to impede such efforts. Talk, off the record, to almost any scientist or major manager at NASA HQ (or even the field centers) and you will find commercial and commercialization to be very dirty words, unless of course they can find some way to get a cut. Had the President’s plan forced NASA to work with private industry and private space efforts, I am willing to guarantee that it would have proved a major impediment to such activities.

Take a close look at the timeline too: There is lots of time. It is a government timeline, and one that private enterprise should be able to run rings around – at least for low Earth orbit activities. Take a look at the timelines for NASA efforts to develop new launch vehicles, then go take a look at the proposed timelines for companies such as Scaled Composites and XCOR. Heck, take a look at any of the X-Prize contenders and compare.

Let’s expand it a bit as well. Go take a look at Luna Corp and similar companies, and their timelines. Look at what they need to get their robotic explorers and exploiters to the moon. Then look at what NASA needs.

You know, the President is not nearly as stupid as his critics try to portray him to be. In fact, he has been pretty shrewd and smart on many major issues. He may not be the best spoken person around, but he is not stupid. Do you think that he may have had some method to his madness here? For what if private industry does create and provide launch services? What if they do send probes on to the moon? Do you think that maybe NASA might, by dint of budget and language, be encouraged to make use of it? It is an intriguing possibility, since the actual language and such is not yet fully available, or perhaps even fully worked out.

Even if not, the timeline and scope provide ample opportunity for private space enterprise to prove its claims. The President has made his announcement and hit the button of his obligation here. He has honored the ideal that was NASA, and provided a cover to try to re-organize and re-focus the agency. In so doing, he has also effectively issued a challenge to the private sector: do it better and do it faster.

For if industry can, then there is the possibility of NASA having to use those services. If not, then the government can proceed on down the same tired path.

I had no realistic hope of a truly visionary plan that would make use of the engine of private enterprise, nor was I surprised. I had a number of concerns that this plan would or could cripple private space efforts, and I am pleased (and a bit surprised) that it did not do so from the start.

All in all, I like this plan because while it breaks no new ground, it does not appear to place limits on non-governmental possibilities. I can live with a tired re-hash of the past, provided that it does not prevent others from creating a brighter future.

-30-

Even with proof, many refused to believe that it had been done. Being smart, the Wright Brothers took photographs, and along with witnesses, this helped prove their claim. What is not remembered today is that there was a good deal of controversy, some of which still continues in academic circles, over other claims to have the first flight. These other flights were done in secrecy, but the Wrights did theirs in the open.

The news of the flight opened the floodgates, however, and the world will never be the same. Innovation came fairly rapidly, with intense private competition between inventors and companies forcing the pace. The delicate flyer rapidly was left in the dust by more robust designs featuring more powerful engines and better controls. The rivalries were quite intense and often very personal, and the world watched.

Within 20 years, man was flying on a regular basis and planes were even being used for war. The era of barnstorming began, and new forces began to add to the forcing function of development. In addition to the personal rivalries and the growing market to commercial aviation, military demands lent impetus to the developments, and the plane reached new heights, quite literally.

Within 40 years, all metal planes were made that could do things that had been the provenance of the most wildly speculative of fiction. They could travel long distances, have multiple engines, and fly higher than the birds that have long fascinated man. They could carry heavy payloads, be it cargo, passengers, or bombs, and flights had circumnavigated the globe not in 80 days, but in weeks.

Within 60 years, the plane had reached space for the first true astronauts were not riding missiles, but planes that reached the limit set by international agreements. These planes were indeed rockets, and what rockets they were.

Within 80 years, air travel – once dismissed as a fad which could never carry any significant number of passengers – was the world’s primary means of intercontinental travel. Even within countries, air travel is the first choice of those needing to go a long distance in a hurry. The air travel industry, commercial and civil, is enormous and worth billions of dollars to the economy.

Now we stand at 100 years. The Wright’s flight came some 3,000 years since the earliest designs on flight by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Yes, I am counting the gentleman who tried the rocket chair in the mix, for it was just an early rocketry failure in my book. The Wright’s were close to 1,000 years since da Vinci did his drawings and experiments. Thousands of years in the making, and look at how much has happened in a mere 100 years.

Today, we stand poised on a new century of flight that may move even faster than the first. Civil aviation is making even more advances and changes, and is one of the safest modes of transportation the world has ever seen. Commercial aviation is the same, and as for military aviation – just wait, because the best is yet to come.

More importantly, there is a new generation of Wright’s at work today. Just as the Wrights, Langley, and the other pioneers of powered flight competed for a prize, there are people today competing for a new prize: the X-Prize. More than just a flight, it has to be a repeated flight carrying passengers. Nor is it just a hundred or so feet, it is to space.

I think the Wright’s would sympathize with these modern pioneers, for the chorus is the same: What good is it? What market is there for it? Only the ultra rich can afford it, it will never take off. The only thing missing right now is “Get a horse” Okay, that came from automobiles, but was also occasionally shouted to a pilot fixing a plane in a field.

The parallels continue, with the government largely non-interested and non-responsive. It is not government money that fueled the Wrights, but their own. Almost all of the X-Prize companies are privately financed, and some are even refusing to take government money. It is not the government’s dream, but the dreams of private individuals that will start this next century of revolution, this next century of flight.

Where the government was helpful in the early days, and not too much of a hindrance, was with air mail. The money for doing that job fueled aviation companies and aviation development. May the government have that much sense again, if it is even needed. For private companies have tasted space, they have studied history, and they see the possibilities. Those seeds are planted, and the new century of flight can reap them even as they sow the future.

In 100 years, we have advanced faster and farther than in the previous 3,000 years of flight. It is not even a comparison where one can say “combined” or other simplicities for ease of consumption. In 100 years we have not just met the dream, but begun taking it to the stars. We have gone from 100 feet to 100 miles to 1,000 miles and beyond. Circumnavigation of the globe is now commonplace, and it took a non-stop circumnavigation to draw any attention to this routine event. Thousands of people travel by air every day, and the figure is in the millions for the year. Zero to millions. 100 years.

What will this new century bring? I will not guess, for I think that my most wild speculation will be surpassed in less than 50 at the current rate of advance. If the dreamers, the speculators, those who put their sweat and own money into it do it again, we may well truly be on our way to the stars in 100 years. I hope that they do. I hope we are.

100 years. It is full of stars. This applies to the last century, as well as to the next. The stars were legion in the last, for the Wright’s simply opened a door and many other brave souls followed and took the torch forward. I will not even attempt to list all the names, for who should be on that list is still hotly debated.

My question for you now, is who will be the Wright’s of the next generation? I have suspicions and favorites here too, and again I will not say. All I will say is watch the skies. There is a new century of flight starting, one which 100 years ago was unthinkable.

100 years. Happy Birthday, heavier-than-air powered flight. Just look at what you have done. Just look at what you can do.

-30-

The TSA has long gone about things backwards, in order to be seen as “doing something” about the problem. The problem is, it is unlikely that many of the weapons came through passenger security in the first place. Many within the field have long maintained that they came in through ground crews, caterers, and others who had access to the planes, and did not have to go through security or security screenings on hire. It is why for many months after 9-11 that plane crews often did searches of the aircraft before passengers boarded.

Nail clippers, strip searches, and more for the passengers were a deliberate inconvenience designed to gather news and make it clear that aggressive measures were being taken. The more inconvenience, the more complaints and news, the more it appeared that something was being done. That it was completely ineffectual in terms of actual security was drowned out by the officious voice of Washington, loudly proclaiming safety was at hand.

Well, now the officious voices in DC are embarrassed, their lack of knickers and other essential personal gear exposed for the world to see. Their lack of personal attributes is such that they are going to go after the student who cried out “The emperor has no clothes” as hard as they can. Even more so because he gave them warning, did everything he could to alert them short of tap dancing in a tutu in front of Tom Ridge, and they still could not be bothered to do their job. Now that there is exposure, everyone else needs to take a hard look and make some decisions.

First, there are a number of other methods for securing aviation that don’t require giving up all individual liberty at the airport. These models, many of which also don’t depend on a vast and inefficient government agency, deserve much more careful attention. Join in this discussion with your congresscritter, as it is your life and your liberties at stake, not just the careers of some civil masters.

Second, I would love to see a campaign right away for a full and complete Presidential pardon for Mr. Heatwole. If President Bush is serious about improving the security of our nation and in prosecuting the war on terror, then he needs to reward this courageous student, not join in the burial detail. What Mr. Heatwole did may have been against the law, it may not have been handled as professionally as some may like, but it has exposed transportation security for the sham it is, and that is the act of a true patriot.

I fear he will pay the price of many a true patriot in terms of life, fortune, and sacred honor. But his example is out there, and we would all do well to pay heed.

-30-

NASA is an easy target right now, but a few more comments are called for simply to finish laying some groundwork. As noted previously, NASA has become insular instead of diverse. This very much applies to developing new launch technologies. Check the record and you will find the same gang pursuing the same goals for some time. You may also note that the extent of industry involvement is almost entirely limited to that same gang, with the occasional exception of a different satellite company who may be asked to provide specs for payload considerations.

This is great if you are going to continue with Big Dumb Boosters, essentially ICBMS writ large if not simply converted ICBMs. It does little to promote the development of truly novel technologies, since none of the private space developers, be they launch or any other service, are consulted. If you can provide me with details of anyone at NASA going to Roton, X-COR, or Burt Rutan and asking them for their needs and inputs, it will be the first time that I know of it being done on a serious basis.

So, accepting that some form of government agency is needed to push the frontiers for reasons political, power, and pork, what should it be doing?

The list that I have come up with is fairly short and sweet: launch/propulsion technology; essential fundamental science; altruistic space exploration. These are the areas where government involvement could be argued to be essential. These are also things that NASA has been tasked to do, with very mixed results and a disconnect from the real world. How then could this be accomplished without running into some of the same problems?

Part of the answer lies with the founding fathers, who went with checks and balances. Would that all government agencies were forced to have them. In this case, the checks and balances should be tied to private enterprise and measured results. The latter may take a special exemption from the civil service acts, but it would not be the first time that was done.

The best way to start is with an agency that is specifically limited in what it can do. Part of the reason for the problems with NASA are the field centers that continue to expand – often to the detriment of the organization – and continually try to be the tail wagging the dog. By eliminating “centerism” at the start many problems can be avoided.

The other way to limit is to provide a focus, a concrete mission that is not open-ended. The best way to do this is to tie research and development to specific goals, preferably those established by industry. If this organization is to be truly useful, it needs to really produce results, not papers and reports. So, if a company has a materials problem, a propulsion problem, or some other technology problem, this could be the place for a research partnership to solve it. The company gets what it needs to advance, the agency does research and work tied to a tangible and measurable objective, and everyone benefits.

Exploration does need to be a part of this, but that does not mean that everything has to be done in-house. One of the early strengths of NASA was collaboration, bringing in academia and industry to address issues and get results right then, not 15 years later. This can be the case again. Exploration can become a multi-talented regime, and this can also be applied to research avenues as well. Wherever possible, commercial hardware, launch systems, and other resources can be used.

Where specialized systems are needed, then they can be built in-house or in collaboration with others who have related expertise. Everything that goes up does not have to be government issue. Let it be government issue where truly appropriate, but let it be privately developed or from a university where appropriate as well.

The organization should not have a monopoly on launch vehicles, services, sites, or manned exploration. An astronaut is anyone who has been in space, not a career civil servant.

This deserves more thought and flesh, but I am going to stop tonight so I can get a good night’s sleep before the next round of sleep depravation. What are your thoughts on this? What do you think a true aerospace agency should do? Should not do? What checks and balances should be in place? I have my ideas, but cross-pollination works here as well. Come on, make some comments and leave some ideas. Let’s see if we can come up with something that will fly.

-30-

First, I think that the times are such that commercial, civil/general, and military aircraft all should have some form of anti-missile defense. Ideally, this would be on a voluntary basis, but I am also sure that the rampant desire by the political hacks to be seen “doing something” may well make it mandatory.

Second, I think that the cost will be well above the $10 billion figure that is being tossed around so casually today. It may well cost that to purchase and install the systems in all U.S. based carriers, but it leaves out the associated costs: the down time for the planes, the down time for the crews, the training time for the people responsible, etc. I rather suspect that this figure could easily double if all the costs of doing this are considered.

Third, I think that the current systems can and should be improved, particularly for commercial aviation. Right now, the trend is toward two-person crews on the flight deck, and as a pilot I can tell you that they are usually fairly busy during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Since this is also the time when a missile attack is most likely, any commercial anti-missile defense will need to be highly automated.

Fourth, I don’t think the government, that is each taxpayer, should be footing the bill in this manner. I would much rather pay a slightly higher ticket price and reward those who do develop and install such systems, than to have the government involved. Just look at how the FAA and TSA have done so much good for commercial and civil aviation. Yes, that is heavy sarcasm there, and if you don’t think that having the government mandate and pay for anti-missile systems would be yet another bureaucratic clusterfuck, then you are not paying attention.

All that said, I think such systems need to be developed and implemented. We need a new generation of systems that will, in turn, drive the development of even more sophisticated military systems.

Commercial space activities are already playing a role in this. One of NASA’s commercial space centers, or whatever they are being called this week, had developed a mid-range IR semiconductor laser that works at room temperature. This laser may well prove a key to one part of an anti-missile system, and there are partners including the U.S. Air Force already working on this.

Other advanced electronics and programming will also help. With more sophisticated processors and systems, countermeasures will require less human input. This is critical in a cockpit, where there is already quite a good bit to do, a high stress level, and severe penalties for mistakes. Adding yet more life-and-death to this mix is foolish, so the systems need to be as standalone as possible. While true AI is a ways away, there already exist sophisticated enough programs to handle something like this. Something that can detect a threat, begin spoofing it, and let the crew know that they have a problem.

There is also one other thing that will help improve security for such situations: an informed and active citizenry. Right now, there is nothing to stop a terrorist from stopping a car near an airport, getting out, targeting a plane on the ground or taking off/coming in. With modern systems, and the SA18 and related are quite good, you can set up and fire in a matter of a minute or two. This means that “the proper authorities” are not going to be able to respond in a timely manner, unless we turn into a police state and flood every square foot for miles around each airport with security officers.

What it does mean is that each Citizen may well be required to be alert, be informed, make a good judgment call, and do what is needed if they see someone doing this. Yes, the authorities should be called, but at the same time the person with the missile needs to be distracted and/or dealt with. That is one of the responsibilities of being a Citizen, and we should not shirk from it.

Right now, the politicians and political hacks are in a tizzy, each fighting for airtime and to be seen “doing something.” What we need to do is resist temptation to rush in and create yet another large government program. What is needed is to step back, look at what is practical and doable for now, and begin work on systems that will be effective for the commercial environment, and will drive a new generation of technology to truly help improve security.

-30-

Anti-Missile systems are expensive, complex, and not really designed for anything other than military aircraft. The two best known components of such systems are chaff and flares, though there are other components.

Expense is the real killer in many respects, as a good anti-missile system can and does cost in the millions of dollars. You also have to take a plane out of service for a period of time to install and test, then you have to train crews in how to use the system. Place this across a few thousand planes, and you have a recipe for economic disaster in an airline industry that is already on a knife edge.

Complexity is an issue in that such systems are not quite throw-a-switch-and-forget. There will need to be training, and yet more training to make them truly effective. This takes people out of use for said training, and it also requires them to be very tuned in during other complex operatons that will also require their attention, like takeoff and landing.

What is needed is a new generation of anti-missle systems aimed specifically at the commercial market, and there may already be some work done there that has not yet come to public attention. More later.

-30-

Each day, several thousand people travel on behalf of the federal government. Both civil service and contractor personnel fly not only around the U.S., but around the world as well. Many of these people have military, law enforcement, or related backgrounds that would lend themselves readily to airline security.

The military has in its various branches a concept of augmenters, people who are not police but are trained to step into various security and police functions in the event of an emergency. These augmenters are trained at least once a year on various issues, procedures, and in the use of firearms and the use of force. They provide a critical backstop for police and security units, and can be utilized in the event of natural disasters, disturbances, or other events where additional security and police units are needed.

So, why not make use of an existing talent pool to improve in-flight security? Why not make use of a proven program to do the same?

Indeed, why not is the question. For all the talk about the need to train sky marshals as marksmen, it is clear from reports that this has been a problem. Indeed, it was a problem that was pointed out from inside the program and without at the start. The weapons familiarity and training of many of the new recruits was questionable and there have been quiet and not-so-quiet claims that this critical portion was watered down to surge numbers through.

Yet, many traveling for the government already hold basic or expert ratings from the military. Others are expert marksmen who shoot in competitions of various types, are NRA-certified instructors, or hold similar levels of expertise from other organizations.

Given backgrounds, weapons familiarity, and the need to increase in-flight security without budget-busting numbers, it would just be plain common sense to make use of this resource. Even with just volunteers, it should be possible to train one to five thousand additional people so that they could provide security on flights.

By modeling on the proven and established augmenters program, this training could even be done is as little as a week with the right cadre, though a two-week course might be better. That should be sufficient time to cover legal basics, use of force, and related firearms training.

Having these augmenters in the air would not just improve overall security, but would provide coverage on smaller flights and others that are not going to be a high priority for the sky marshals. In this way, the “real” sky marshals could be freed up to concentrate on the more critical flights.

The costs of such a program would be very low. You would need to provide and pay for training, and most likely the government would insist on providing the weapon. There should be monthly range training, but this could even be done at a civilian range with a certified range master. It should also be put in the regulations that the augmenter can and should go to the range on their own to practice, and not prohibit same. Other than this, there should be little cost to the government.

The people traveling on government business are already being paid for their time, and the travel is routine and is already covered. This means that there are no additional expenses, such as hotels, per diem, etc.

In a time where the reduction of sky marshals for budgetary reasons, reducing in-flight security when new threats are being made public, there is a clear need for additional security in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Having an augmenters program is a logical and reasonable way to do this.

-30-

It was even seen on 9-11 itself, when the passengers of Flight 93 took action and prevented that plane from being used in another attack. It was seen afterwards in many instances where passengers took down potential problems, including shoe bomber Richard Reid. Working together not as vigilantes, but as responsible Citizens, passengers and crews provided the true security on flights. The days of hunkering down were over.

From recent releases and security bulletins, however, it is clear that Al-Qaeda and related organizations have not gotten the message. It seems they think that they can still control and bamboozle the passengers and crew into cooperation, then suicide the planes. From this it would also appear that they have not realized that poking the sleeping giant is not a great idea. One would think the loss of the only government of which they approved, and a major supporter and financier of terrorism, might have given them a clue, but apparently not.

It is also clear that not all in government have learned the lessons. The FAA and the Transportation Security Administration are both failing to adapt to the changes. Some of the problems are not unexpected, but others constitute a willful disobedience that places all of us in jeopardy.

The fact that there are problems with the drastically increased Sky Marshall program is not unexpected. Indeed, many of the problems reported were forecast from both outside observers and people involved in the program as soon as the expansion was announced. Many of those fears have been realized, with people reportedly leaving the program in disgust amid charges of mismanagement, incompetence, and more. Still others are being placed on leave or dismissed because of problems with the background checks. Other delights include the Marshall arrested recently for allegedly pulling a gun during a dispute over a parking space at Kennedy Airport.

Many of these problems will be cleared up with time,and with proper oversight and public scrutiny. Others, however, may not. It is regrettable that the government did not take advantage of other opportunities, including the use of the huge cadre of government travelers, both civil servant and contractor, who are trained and could have been surged into security through additional training along the lines of the military security police augmenters program.

More critical is the disregard being shown by the FAA towards meeting the requirements to arm pilots. In the past, pilots were armed and this was ended as part of the anti-hijacking efforts of the 70s, since it was argued that the Sky Marshall program provided better security. The failure of the FAA to fully and completely meet the requirements to arm pilots who meet the qualifications could be argued to approach willful disregard for its obligations and the safety of the public. The foot dragging, the barriers being erected, and other related efforts to sabotage this initiative are not acceptable.

You, as a Citizen, have both rights and responsibilities and these apply to homeland security. You have the right and the responsibility to protect yourself and others if there is a problem, be it in a plane or elsewhere. The passengers and crews on a variety of flights have shown that by working together in a responsible manner, that problems can be prevented or stopped.

There is one other thing you can do to meet the obligations you have to protect yourself and others. You can contact the people you elected to represent you, and suggest strongly that these issues be addressed openly and immediately, for the safety of all. With the right encouragement, maybe everyone can learn the rules have changed.

– 30 –

Start with Trent Telenko's piece (yet another good one by Trent) over at Winds of Change, and be sure to read the article at Slate he references as it gives some much needed history for understanding what is going on right now. Another good article with a lot of history is here. Also check out Blogfather Joe Katzman's piece at Winds of Change.

These provide a good start, but you will also want to check out some of the discussion at Jerry Pournelle's place in the mail section. Jerry writes about a lot more than computers, and has the background to be authoritative in quite a few areas. Where he is not an expert, he pulls in readers and others who are such, and the mail is often a very lively exchange. Yes, it takes time to read but is well worth the time.

But these discussion, while quite good, only tell part of the story. You need to go to Warthog Territory to get a much fuller picture of what this remarkable plane can do, has done, and is needed to do now and in the future. You also need to pay particular attention to THIS story, and take a good, hard, and long look at the pictures -- and at the plane, not the pilot.

The fact is, the A-10 has been the true workhorse of the last two wars. To be honest, I have always wanted one of my own because of my belief that there are no old, bold pilots. You can have old, or you can have bold, but rare indeed is the one who is both. The A-10 has about two of everything in case one gets shot off. It is one of the most survivable planes ever developed, taking on man and nature and usually coming out on top.

The Air Force has, from the beginning, been unable and unwilling to live up to its sworn agreements on close-air ground support. Then again, the Air Force has long had some serious problems with its field grade officers and leadership. A family friend who worked for the Air Force blamed a lot of it on it being a young service with far too young leadership when it was formed. According to this friend, they had never grown up and the resultant Air Force reflects that to this day.

This friend pointed out a lot of the follies of this service, from having to go bury "excess" stock needed for maintenance before inspections and then not being allowed to go retrieve same after inspection, to the insistence on smoke and flame from engines, even when eliminating same would increase power and fuel efficiency. Nope, couldn't have that, the brass had to have the visual. It is my personal opinion that the current scandals racking the Air Force Academy, and the craven refusal to admit to and correct same by the Secretary of the Air Force and the top officers under him, reflect this same "frat boy" mentality.

My own experiences have verified a lot of what they said, and I was less than impressed with many of the field grade Air Force officers I had met. While there were some damn good NCOs, and I very much liked the SOW people I had met, it was not until I worked at an Air Force research and testing center that I met some truly good officers. I am very picky about who I would willingly follow into a conflict, and I found several there that I would have followed. I also noticed that most of the really good ones were leaving the Air Force, and see signs that this trend continues to this day.

Okay, they are willing to yet again abandon their responsibilities and sworn duty, that's fine. They are also manifestly unwilling to let the Army assume the role, for purely political reasons, but that is fine too. One way out of this mess is to turn it over to the only other service that does provide fixed-wing close-air support to the troops who are living up to their oaths and doing the work: the Marines. My recommendation is to completely sidestep the whole issue of Air Force vs. Army and give the job to someone who can do it, who is not a part of the current pissing match, and has the integrity -- unlike the Air Force -- to do the job. Give them the job, all the funds currently going to the Air Force for same, and a portion of the current Air Force R&D budget so that they can develop a replacement for the A-10. From everything seen so far in the War on Terror, in Afghanistan to Iraq, the A-10 is the star performer and the true workhorse.

We need it, the troops need it, and the pilots who are not afraid to do the job need it. What is more, they deserve it and the cowardice of the Air Force clearly shows that they can not do it. So, let's cut to the chase and give it to someone who can and will do the job, and do it right. Semper Fi.

-30-

In the week after 9-11, I wrote an op-ed as a pilot and former director of the Aviation/Space Writers Association. The title of the piece was the same as this: The Rules Have Changed. Given recent events, it is easy to forget the mindset of the pre-9-11 days.

For years, pilots, flightcrews, and even passengers had been trained not to resist in any active way. You cooperated, stalled, never looked them in the eye, never did anything to upset them, etc. This was drilled in at flight school, special seminars, safety lectures, and through a variety of publications.

Even had the pilots been armed, it is unlikely that they would have used said arms. All training, all standard operating procedure, all trained instincts would have been not to resist people who, according to some reports, claimed to have bombs and clearly had edged weapons of some type. You co-operated, bought time, and hoped that the SWAT teams were up to the job.

9-11 changed the rules. It changed the mindset of the bureaucracy in Washington, it changed the mindset of the suits in the corporate offices, and it re-affirmed the opinion of the rules held by many line-types in the flight community. There were a few who did change their mind, but many already had questioned the rules as they stood, especially those who actually had to deal with the public, the nuts, and the terrorists in person instead of from a comfortable distance.

Before, people were coddled and placated, and air rage and other travesties had become a serious problem. No one dared interfere, since the rules said not to do so, and in many cases those who did help the flight crews faced possible criminal charges for assault or worse. I can recall one case where when someone who apparently developed severe problems on a flight was subdued for the safety of all, and died while subdued. Never mind that a clear and present danger was presented to the aircraft (I seem to recall that the passenger wanted to open a door, among other things), the fellow passenger who responded and helped hold the “distraught” passenger down was charged with manslaughter or something similar. Today, if that had happened they would be a hero. Since it happened pre-9-11, they were a killer, named and shamed in a media that leaped on this story of vigilante justice. Cough, choke, wheeze.

Given the climate and conditioning of the times, having armed pilots would likely not have made a difference on 9-11. It can make a difference now. Passengers are now being taught that they can and should react to problems in the plane, as has been demonstrated by passengers in several planes. It works, just ask Shoebomber Reid. Air rage and other problems are down too, just check the crime statistics and talk to the flight crews. It is creeping back up as some complacency sets in and we are once again being told to let the professionals handle it, but that too can and will change.

Arming the pilots is a good first step, but it needs to be taken further. I put in, both officially and unofficially, a way to greatly increase the number of armed guards on flights. The fact is, there are a lot of government travelers who are ex-military or otherwise trained with weapons. There are a lot of retired military and law-enforcement people out there, or others who have specialized training. Create an auxiliary force similar to military and security police augmenters, and let them fly armed too. There is no reason not to take advantage of this trained pool to augment and expand “the proper authorities.” Of course, I was not surprised that this suggestion was rejected.

Then again, I feel that all citizens should be able to travel armed. Robert Heinlen got it so very right when he said that “An Armed Society Is A Polite Society.” I doubt that we will ever get things that far under a Justice Department that seems to take a dim view of personal liberty, but I can hope.

Go read this excellent post, and see what you think.

-30-