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.

FMI: 2005 Year-in-Review Comments?