...And Here, Darn it, Are The Heartbreakers

Final Compilation/Analysis by ANN EMedia Producer Paul Plack

It is both the most "fun," and most difficult task, facing the ANN staff at the end of every year -- determining who, or what, did the most to promote the cause of aviation in the past 365 days... while also chastising those people or entities that did all they could to undermine the many successes the aerospace community has managed to accomplish.
 
Alas, 2010 saw more than its fair share of downers, aviation-wise. Sure, "stuff" happens... but a few folks, issues, or entities seemed to go out of their way to create problems for the world of aviation.

So... it is ANN's annual obligation to recognize a dozen of our Aero-Heroes/Heartbreakers for 2010... in something of an informal order -- Saving the 'best' for last.

Let us know what you think of our selections... whom YOU would have liked be included, or omitted, from such a list. In the meantime, we hope those who had something to do with this year's selections think a little more positively about the welfare of this industry, so that future lists become harder and harder to catalog.

Be it ignorance, arrogance or just plain incompetence, these were the folks or topics that made our lot a whole lot more difficult and immeasurably injured the aviation world in the past year.

Shame on those issues, folks, or groups that made our lot so much tougher in 2010...

Aero-Heartbreakers -- Napolitano, Pistole, and False Hope

It is difficult, if not unprecedented, to launch a government program that doesn't grow beyond its original vision and bring down unintended consequences. There is no better example for most Americans than the huge, rolling boulder known as "homeland security." It quickly became clear, following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) following 9/11, that we were set on a path to a larger, much more intrusive government presence in our lives, significant financial impact in both government and the private sector, and a near-complete disconnect between bang and buck.

With the exception, of course, that every little bang would turn loose lots more bucks.

Some actual security experts warned from the start that there's really nothing that can be done within the paradigm of a large, government program to ensure protection of any airliner, train, bus, building or seaport from a lone, motivated saboteur. It is the nature of any organization as large as an army, society or national economy that the larger and more powerful it grows, the less capable it becomes in the detection and mitigation of tiny threats. This is the premise of asymmetrical warfare.

The people we call terrorists are keenly aware of this. These sociopaths understand clearly that it is not necessary to cause mass casualties to do real damage to the US. Even the casualties on 9/11 were less than half the number of deaths from natural causes on any average day in the US. The whole point of terrorism is to use our imaginations as a force-multiplier, pushing us to see a threat in every corner of our daily existence, and practice economic self-immolation in response.

And so, the government's real enemy is our imaginations, not the next batch of guys with box cutters or exploding underpants. This political reality has forced the US homeland security effort toward what is known, even in the popular vernacular, as "Security Theater." Terrorism relies on creating events which are simply another tabloid murder when analyzed logically, but which are framed in a way that inspires us to fear similar threats in our own everyday lives. The government responds by pacifying us with an immense show of concern, force, and spending. It's mission is to calm our imaginations, because it can't really do much to mitigate the actual threats.

 Napolitano, Pistole

Anecdotal evidence suggests a growing number of Americans are tiring of the charade, expecting Congress and the bureaus it has created to move on from Security Theater's focus on inanimate objects to behavioral profiling, or figuring out how to keep terrorists, not their shampoo and nail clippers, off airliners. Some had reason to hope that new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor and attorney general, would bring clear thought and logical priorities to the fight against terrorism. After all, who better than the former chief executive of the state at the vortex of the border security debate to appreciate the difference between theater and effectiveness, right?

Unfortunately, Napolitano has looked more like the Democrat governor who earned White House favor with her 2008 endorsement of President Obama, then parlayed that into a convention appearance and eventual cabinet-level gig in Washington. The American vernacular in 2010 tagged her, and even her bureau, with the nickname, "Big Sis," especially after the escalation in the invasiveness of airport security screening last year.

Likewise, hopes were high for new TSA Administrator John Pistole. After the first two Obama nominees for the post fell apart under vetting by the US Senate, Pistole looked like a breath of fresh air. Surely, a guy who'd served as Deputy Director of the FBI for six years since 9/11 would bring to TSA an appreciation for intel-based detection of threats, right?

One of 2010's big disappointments has been the extent to which Pistole left behind any appreciation for intel-based protocols, but apparently brought with him a high level of comfort with the idea of frisking people. He's been fond of responding to criticism of aggressive pat-downs by noting it's routine for suspects encountered by law enforcement. The implication is clear - to Pistole, we're all suspects now. The FBI's primary mission is stopping crime which has reached the interstate level, which requires serious work behind the scenes. But the agency also lives in a world where the Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to be worked around. It's clear which paradigm is at work at TSA.

Both Napolitano and Pistole dug in to defend Security Theater during 2010, both domestically and internationally, but there were a few signs of hope during the year. A growing contingent of frequent travelers are coming to view the TSA as a bigger hassle than terrorism, which could eventually bring pressure to stop the waste. Representative John Mica, a Florida Republican who helped author the legislation which created TSA, told airports they should reject the agency in favor of private contractors for operating airport checkpoints. (The gesture might have been less hollow if private screeners were allowed to be any less invasive than government ones, or had Mica proposed defunding or otherwise turning back the plague he helped create.) And after his first intimate contact with general aviation at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, Pistole was even willing to admit the so-called "Large Aircraft Security Program" which would bring airline-style inefficiencies to business aircraft operators, needed work.

Perhaps the very fact that terms such as "Big Sis" and "Security Theater" have reached the street is also a sign of hope. Talk radio really wanted to move on to other topics in the days before Thanksgiving, but listeners wouldn't stop calling to discuss the pat-downs. An e-mail containing a satirical TSA bumper-sticker campaign showed one which read, "We Offer Grope Discounts," and went viral late last year. As enhanced screenings continue as a staple of late-night TV comedy, more and more people in everyday life seem to know what the Fourth Amendment actually says, a milestone even our educational system couldn't achieve.

To the extent the bigger threat from terrorists is in our imaginations, it's unrealistic to think Security Theater will go away anytime soon. If things do change, perhaps our leaders will excuse a little cynicism during the transition, given the disappointments named Napolitano and Pistole.

FMI: Comments/Criticism for ANN???