So why are the ADIZ and FRZ bad? (Aviation Security Theatre, part 2)
(See part one.)
So, what’s wrong with having strong aviation security? After all, we need our nation’s capital protected. All those planes can wreak havoc, they need to be controlled! Look what happened to the Pentagon on 9/11!
Ok, let’s look: On 9/11 and in all other terrorist uses of aircraft in the world, all the aircraft have been large transport-category aircraft. These are aircraft like the MD-80, Boeing 737 or other larger aircraft used to transport people and freight at high speeds, high altitudes, and long distances. Their speeds are in the range of 300-500 mph in cruise and even when landing or taking off travel well over 100 mph They weight hundreds of tons and carry many thousands of pounds of fuel. (Jet fuel is 6 lbs/gallon.)
The damage an airplane (or any large vehicle) can do is related to its speed, the fuel it carries, and the amount of weight it can carry (it’s mass). The only planes used in terrorist incidents have been transport category aircraft because they’re faster, carry tons of jet fuel, and weight much much more. The energy of impact is proportional to the mass and to the velocity squared.
By comparison a typical corporate jet like a Gulfstream V weights around 90,500 lb loaded (45 tons), and carries 41,300 lbs (6883 gals) of jet fuel and 6,500 lbs of payload. Corporate jets travel around 300-400 mph.
A third category are small planes. A small plane will weigh 2000-4000 lbs and carry 40-80 gallons (300-700 lbs) of gasoline fuel and 300-600 lbs of payload (not counting gas). A typical small Cessna flys at 120 mph which is around the landing speed for a transport-category aircraft. Three normal-sized adults and full fuel is as much as it will carry: about 900 lbs total. These speeds and weights are typical for small aircraft from a variety of manufacturers. Small planes are easiest to fly too, they’re often used for training after all.
You can carry more weight in your car or SUV than a small airplane can. Many cars also have larger gas tanks too. The only thing an airplane can do better is go a little faster and to fly.
There are several cases where small aircraft deliberately crashed into something. During Clinton’s presidency a small place crashed into the White House grounds. A tree limb was broken. A young man crashed a plane into a building in Tampa FL. He was killed, the airpane demolished, and the office he hit was also demolished. The hallway outside that office wasn’t affected. The Cory Liddle incident in New York where his airplane didn’t make the turn and crashed also didn’t create massive damage either.
While this is regrettable, a small plane just doesn’t go fast enough, carry enough fuel, or carry enough load to make much of an effect as a WMD. Because of this, a small plane is very unlikely to be used in any terrorist incident. You can’t pack enough explosives or anything damaging enough in it! (While there are unverified rumors of “suitcase nukes” capable of being carried by one person, known nuclear weapons typically weight as much or more than a small plane does.)
Corporate jets are faster and can carry more weight and fuel. Still, they’re unlikely to be a problem. Their capacity is a small fraction of the transport jets capacity in both weight and fuel. They’re much more expensive to get access to than transport jets, and they’re also harder to get than smaller aircraft. The training to fly them is more involved and longer, and hijacking is more difficult since the crews and passengers often know each other. Besides, corporate jets typically fly IFR and so aren’t affected by the ADIZ in any case.
IFR vs VFR
So what? Small plane may be very unlikely targets for terrorists, but why take a chance? Have the security just in case. The problem with that is that that ADIZ and FRZ security only affects planes flying VFR, not IFR. Transport aircraft and corporate jets always fly IFR.
IFR are “Instrument Flight Rules” and VFR are “Visual Flight Rules”. To fly IFR you have to file a flight plan, be in radio contact with a controller continuously, and be navigating with reference to radio navigation devices like radio beacons or GPS. Pilots need additional training to fly IFR as well. Company policy at all airlines requires IFR flying. Almost all corporate jets fly IFR too. Under IFR an airplane can fly in the clouds or in poor visibility.
Many small aircraft do not fly IFR, but fly VFR. If the particular airspace a plane is in doesn’t require talking to a controller, then the small plane under VFR doesn’t have to talk to a controller. Navigation is done by either radio navigation aids or more simply by looking out the windows. Most airports don’t have control towers after all. This is all simpler and easier to do, but requires better weather than IFR flying does.
So here’s the kicker. The ADIZ doesn’t have any effect on airplanes flying under IFR! Almost all flight operations are normal IFR operations. The ADIZ only really affects VFR pilots. And VFR pilots are almost alway flying smaller, slower aircraft. Those smaller slower aircraft are the ones that aren’t really a problem.
Just to be clear: The ADIZ only affects planes that terrorists don’t want to use. The planes that they might want to use are the ones that can fly in the ADIZ with impunity. We’re spending money and wasting people’s time on something that’s not useful.
Flight Safety
The special airspace around Washington DC has required special training for controllers and pilots. It has some real legal teeth in that a pilot who violates the ADIZ can expect to loose their license for some time. Its goal isn’t related to flight safety but to making security easier. Several new controller positions are required to handle the additional work. We’re making security easier by making more work for pilots and controllers? This isn’t secure in a broader sense!
The FAA already has a problem with controller staffing. The demographic “bump” in controllers that happened when Reagan fired all the controllers nationwide and new ones were hired and trained is resulting in high retirement numbers now. So just when controllers are seriously understaffed, the ADIZ imposes new burdens on them and raises the staffing levels needed.
The cost of maintaining the ADIZ, monitoring traffic, and responding to incidents is ongoing and expensive. The FAA built a National Capital Coordination center to monitor all aircraft in the ADIZ for security purposes only. This was not at the usual air traffic control facility, this is a new facility. The military has their own center too, and the Coast Guard and Air Force are responsible for maintaining crews ready to respond to “an incursion”. All these people are working hard to guard us from a threat that isn’t realistic. It would be better if their work was more useful.
In the years that the ADIZ has been in place there have been several thousand incursions (as defined by the government, records are apparently classified and only summaries have been released that I know of). In no case was there any indication that any pilot in an incursion was a terrorist. At least, that’s the answer I’ve been given. It’s consistent with no government action to pursue any pilot as a terrorist.
Summary
So, we have an expensive system that badly affected businesses and employment and that only affects planes that are not terrorist targets. It adds workload to controllers already overworked, and hasn’t caught any bad guys. Another success for the Bush administration.