Power plant and dams

[MovingOn]

.......

[Jack Tyler]

Two small observations:

Australia is a wonderful place, one of our two favorite places we lived out of some 53 countries, dependencies and island nations. But some of you might view it as a totalitarian state when compared to the U.S. Imagine day-time traffic barriers set up by the police where every driver in line must blow into a straw to verify they aren't drunk. Hardly driven by probable cause. If cited, you must pay for a new license plate with prefix identifying you to the public at large for your alcohol related citation. Automatic radar/camera points for speeding are very common, so much so that the drivers concentrate on where the next camera is located and yo-yo speeds up & down rather than concentrating on safe driving. Their treatment of some would-be immigrant groups is viewed as notorious around the South Pacific. The list is a pretty long one. On the whole, Aussies are a wonderful, industrious, and welcoming group of folks. Interestingly, they too often express puzzlement at the nature of their government.

Take by contrast where Nomore767's wife worked: Heathrow International. London isn't just under an ongoing terrorist threat. It's suffered multiple attacks for decades now, first from the IRA and later by islamic extremists. And like Atlanta is one of our major national hubs, London is the principal hub for Europe and the Gulf. Yet the experience one has there as a passenger - Patricia and I have flown in and out of there many times - is almost the opposite of that we often experience from a TSA culture that is, for me at least, an embarrassment. Heathrow's security workers know they are involved in a serious business...but they also know how to do their job in a humane way.

My point is that it isn't just about the laws and guidelines which all societies have in order to function properly. It's also about how they are administered. That's why the Barney Fife behavior demonstrated towards the glider pilot mentioned earlier grates so. That's in large measure why AOPA has been so vocal about CBP interceptions of flights by recreational pilots - it's due to the behavior at the local level by the local boys. It's often at the heart of many pilots' criticisms of the FAA at the home office level...and also the reason why you often hear very positive comments about controllers and most FSDO employees, who know they serve out in the real world. We all know what Pogo said. We as Americans could do a far better job of behaving towards one another, given the difficult circumstances we sometimes must deal with. I think that applies to all levels of our society and especially so in the bureaucracies that enjoy all but total authority. (Might fit how we behave here just a wee bit, too).

[Merlinspop]

Great observations, Jack.

With respect to the "threat" of General Aviation airplanes, part of the problem is that Americans suck at physics.

FLT77 that struck the Pentagon was a 757. MTOW of ~250,000 pounds (certainly when it struck it was something below this number, but I couldn't find an estimate of actual weight and fuel on board), and it struck the Pentagon going an estimated 530 MPH. That's a whole lot of impact energy and a lot of fuel which made a whole lot of damage.

Contrast with the aircraft that caused the evacuation of federal buildings this past weekend:

Mooney M20C - Gross Weight - ~2500 pounds (having left from MA, it's weight would be well below max). Max speed in a controlled dive would be in the neighborhood of 250 MPH (assuming parts don't start ripping off first). At best, 40 of it's initial 52 gallons of gas remained.

Comparing the two is like comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite. But 9/11 is still vivid in our memory and the math is hard to do and even harder to understand, so WE (the collective "we" not including most pilots) lump all "Airplanes" into the same category and fear them nearly the same. [Paul, you've discussed at length the energy aspect of the LSA max weight, would you care to estimate the relative energy potential of the two types? My comparison guess is probably well off, but it'd be interesting to see what you came up with]

Sad, and an almost impossibility to educate the public out of that mindset.

Again, I am NOT saying that we should do away with security, or attempts to provide better security. My argument is that GA doesn't pose the threat commensurate with the measures in place to guard against GA. I'm not saying there should be none, just more reasonable.

[Merlinspop]

And as was pointed out elsewhere, there is a psychological element that goes beyond the physical damage of an attack, even if the attack itself is largely ineffective. Keeping people on edge because they might be attacked is a goal of terrorists in itself. Terribly complex, indeed.

[MrMorden]

I'm back. I couldn't reach my brothers and sisters by phone so I just sent 2 emails. My Aunt was 89 and had been ill for a long time, so her death comes as no surprise and she was ready.

Andy, I don't know how to respond to your beliefs other than to say I just don't agree at all with the little I know about what you believe. I am 66 years old and love this country and have very few complaints. I had a very successful 34 year corporate career with a Fortune 100 company. Most of my friends and relatives are conservatives. My father was a doctor and a huge Republican supporter. I don't agree with any of them either. My brother was an Eastern Airlines 757 Captain, then a flight instructor, then a police officer. He is the only relative who was in 100 percent agreement with me. My sister, about 90 percent.

I have never felt like my freedoms were being trampled or at risk. There is nothing I have ever wanted or needed to do that I could not do. There has never been anywhere I have ever wanted or needed to go that I could not go. I have nothing against our government or any government agencies, even the IRS. I have probably paid as much income taxes as most people here and more than a lot of people here. I don't have a problem with that.

I supported Barack Obama in both elections and worked for passage of the Affordable Health Care law. I attended the 2012 Democratic Convention and worked security there. I send regular contributions to the Democratic Party. I have started contributing to the "Ready For Hillary" campaign and volunteered to work for that campaign just 2 days ago. I'm now trying to find out how and where to volunteer for the 2016 Democratic Convention.

I don't want to see anymore tax cuts and cuts in services. I think the single most important thing we need to do is improve our public school system so that all public schools are as good or better than any private schools. We do have a huge problem with the debt, but we can't fix that in the short term. I am against a balanced budget amendment. We shouldn't try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. We need less guns, not more (I have a concealed carry permit, but don't believe we need guns in our churches and in bars. My Presbyterian minister agrees with me.)

I am for human rights. I believe in marriage equality and a woman's right to choose. I support affirmative action and civil rights. I support social security, medicare, medicaid, and the AFC law. I believe global warming is a real problem and partly man-made. I am also afraid we may have passed the tipping point.

As far as Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, that's the only thing GW Bush did that I agree with. I want our government to do whatever they can to keep us safe. I don't have a problem if they keep a list of who I call on the phone or monitor this forum. I believe in government regulation of the financial system. I believe that too much money is flowing to too few people creating an unsustainable imbalance. I don't see the wealthy as "job creators." I see the middle class with jobs, money in their pockets, out buying goods and services, as job creators.

I could go on with this, but you get the idea. I am not a disgruntled, angry old man. I have plenty of money, a sizable portfolio, a good pension, social security, medicare and company paid health insurance for life, etc. Money is not my issue. The reason I don't own an airplane is I have different priorities. I have a financial plan to protect my wife to age 100 should I die early (both highly likely events) and leave my kids a sizable inheritance. Not that I wouldn't want to own another airplane, but it's not a priority right now and nothing against those who have different priorities.

I want to see the poor and middle class rise up out of the ashes of the last 10 years. I want to see a stop to useless wars. I want our leaders to look for ways to work with our allies and our enemies to find solutions to common problems. If we don't, we will continue to fight wars over dwindling supplies of natural resources.

Now, instead of refuting everything I believe in, why don't you just tell me what you believe in. Maybe there is some common ground somewhere. But if not, that's OK. It's a free country. Our votes will probably cancel each other out.

Now we are getting somewhere! I have never wanted to refute everything you believe in, I just want us to discuss things calmly and not get all up in each others' grilles.

I think that you assume that I'm a strong conservative, but that is not true. I am a Libertarian, and that means we have more in common than you might think. The single issue that I believe most defines my political beliefs basically sets the tone for how I approach every issue; that issue is individual freedom. I believe that governments have one single purpose, and that is to protect the rights of their citizens to life, liberty, and property. I think to the extent possible, all interactions between people should be voluntary, and nota result of coercion, including interactions with government. Generally most government actions outside that scope lead to bad outcomes, IMO.

Areas where we probably agree:

1) I am for not only gay marriage, but marriage between ANY consenting adults. Marriage is a contract, and any adults should be allowed to enter into any contract in which all parties agree to the terms voluntarily. This includes gay, transgendered, and even plural marriage. As long as all parties are adults and marrying voluntarily, the government has no business in the process at all. Children, animals, and inanimate objects cannot be married because they cannot enter into legal contracts, sidestepping any ethical reasoning.

2) I am pro-choice, in spite of being personally against abortion. This goes back to individual freedom. In this case, there are two sets of rights to consider, those of the mother and those of the child. The difference between pro-choice and pro-life comes down to a philosophical one of whose rights take precedence. If the child has rights, then certainly their right to life trumps the mother's right to liberty for the nine month pregnancy term. However, if we decide a child is not a human being until birth, then the mother's rights are paramount. Which of these is a principled position? BOTH. My choice would be to grant a child that could life outside the mother rights, but others might decide otherwise and that is a valid, rational position. So therefore I have to concede that the only valid course here is to let individuals decide -- I let individual freedom trump my personal desires.

3) The prolific foreign wars are insane.

Areas where we have common ground but are not in complete agreement:

1) I also want the middle and lower classes to be rebuilt, but I have a different idea for how that is best done. I think that transfer payments (taxing one citizen and then giving the money to another citizen in benefits) is counterproductive. I think the best answer to this is for government to get out of the way and allow people to thrive. One of the primary reasons the middle class has been decimated is that we have a "weak dollar" policy where the Federal Reserve keeps the dollar as weak as possible in order to increase our international trade balance. The problem is this also destroys the value of the dollar for citizens, leading to strong inflation and increasing prices, with which wages cannot keep up.

Areas we will likely disagree on:

1) I think the over-militarization of police since 9/11 is a huge problem. After the Boston Marathon bombing, armored vehicles in the streets and house-to-house, warrantless searches by SWAT teams with guns pointed at citizens is not anywhere near a rational, proportional response. I used to be a Police Officer; I understand the scale of force and how it should be applied, and that ain't it. There are a million examples of the Police developing an "us versus them" mentality with citizens, staring in the early 1990s and reaching a fever pitch after 9/11. It's unnecessary, expensive, and contrary to good governance. The USA has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. That does not add up for a supposedly open and free nation.

2) I think income taxes, and particularly those used for transfer payments, are a form of slavery. Slavery is defined as using one person's labor for the benefit of another without compensation, and that describes how income taxes work. There is a very good reason that an income tax was explicitly forbidden in the original Constitution, and the US functioned perfectly well without one until 1913. In fact, the longest period of economic expansion in US history was 1865 - 1913.

3) Many on the left see the main problem in the US as too much corporate power. Many on the right see the problem as too much government power. I see the problem as too much crossover. Politics get involved in business through over-regulation, and business gets involved in politics through lobbying and campaign donations. If there were hard and fast barriers between business and government (in BOTH directions), I think we'd all be better off...government has no good reason for telling businesses how to operate, and business should not be telling lawmakers how to set policy.

I am fine with you disagreeing with any or all of what I've written, and having differing opinions on anything. I just would like for the debate on the issues to remain civil. We don't have to believe that other opinions come from a place of greed, stupidity, "nonsense" or evil in other people. I have very logical and rational reasons for my beliefs, as I'm sure you do. Also, many people on the internet are more willing to say very inflammatory things to another person they would never say in person, and I think we need to resist that temptation.

And for the record, you don't have to worry about my vote canceling yours, I have not voted for a Republican or Democrat for President in 20 years, and that will not likely change.

[3Dreaming]

I agree. They should provide a larger buffer around major events. I don't have any idea what is appropriate for the President. I am not privy to the data. 30 miles might be right, it might be too much, it might not be enough. I have no way to know. I'll leave that to the professionals who are trained to deal with these things.

I don't think bigger around major events is the answer. Why shut more business down by blocking more airspace.
I think smaller around POTUS would be in order.

Because the size of a TFR around a stadium is probably too small to give them time to react to an intrusion by a high speed plane intent on a mass killing by crashing a plane into a stadium with 60,000 spectators. As I posted above, the size of the TFR around Camp David would only give them 3 minutes to make a decision to shoot down a plane. I don't think that is too much time for such a decision. I also don't see why a TFR would shut down businesses unless it was over an airport. In that case they can plan around it. Even FEDEX could plan around a shut down of Memphis.

Just food for thought using STL and MLB as an example. If you shut down the airspace for VFR pleasure flights and training for 30 mile radius like they do for the president you would shut down about 10 public use airports and many more private airports for a minimum of 5 hours 83 days a year from April to October. Now figure in the other 14 games going on around the country. It equates to over 300 weeks at 40 hours a week of shut down time, and you would need to multiply that by all the airports and workers effected. The number becomes staggering. This is just aviation businesses being effected, many of which are operating on a very small profit margin. Just think of the lost tax revenue.

[dstclair]

Wow -- go offline for 3 days and I miss a heck of ride

I personally have no issue with the 'request' to avoid over flying certain structures. I don't see this as any different conceptually than the regs requiring us to fly 1000' AGL over a congested area, 500' AGL otherwise. Decent explanation is contained in: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/notams ... tfrweb.pdf.

Some of the celebrated examples certainly show local law enforcement are in need of education on both the regulation and enforcement.

[drseti]

Paul, you've discussed at length the energy aspect of the LSA max weight, would you care to estimate the relative energy potential of the two types?

Easily done, Bruce. For the 757: max gross wt is 250,000# = 113,636 kg. velocity is 530 MPH = 236 m/s. So KE = 3164 MJ.

For the Mooney: max gross wt is 2500# = 1136 kg. velocity is 250 MPH = 112 m/s. So KE = 7.1 MJ.

Bottom line: the 757 had 446 times the kinetic energy of the Mooney.

[MovingOn]

.......

[3Dreaming]

Someone could load up an LSA with glass containers full of gasoline and crash into a stadium full of people and kill a lot of people. Just because there are other ways to kill a lot of people doesn't mean we should ignore this one, IMHO. Reasonable people can disagree.

I don't think anyone is saying ignore the fact that it could happen. Someone could drive a 18 wheeler past security and on to the field full of explosives, but you don't see them shutting roads down for 3 miles around. Most stadiums have roads right up to the stadium, and they are not shut down. If they were people would be outraged. I think a little common sense could be used in a case like this.

[MrMorden]

Someone could load up an LSA with glass containers full of gasoline and crash into a stadium full of people and kill a lot of people. Just because there are other ways to kill a lot of people doesn't mean we should ignore this one, IMHO. Reasonable people can disagree.

The question in my mind is one of likelihood vs. cost of increased security. Somebody at a stadium could drive their car through all the gates, out on to the field, and run over all members of the team they don't like. But the chance of that is so negligible, that we don't prohibit all motor vehicles within a mile of the stadium. Part of the reason is that the cost of doing so to everyone involved is excessive given the actual risk.

The question becomes why are airplanes different? There were hundreds of TFR violations and 75 intercepts last year. The number due to intentional criminal actions was...zero. So you have to start weighing the cost of all that federal and military effort, and I think an honest cost/benefit analysis shows costs well in excess of the risk.

You can make the "if it stops just one bad guy, it's worth it" argument, but that is a demonstrably false argument. We decide NOT to do things all the time that would 100% be more effective if we did them. We don't make passengers on commercial airlines strip and wear TSA-issued clothing when they fly. We don't do cavity searches on all passengers. We don't hand search every bag that goes on an airplane. We don't put all passengers in restraints in their seats to keep them from doing anything wrong.

The reason we don't do these things is not that they would be ineffective, but that they are costly, humiliating, inconvenient, and unacceptable to the flying public. So we have already decided that we are going to forego some security measures for various reasons...the only question remaining is where should that line be drawn. I would make the line farther back, you would push it forward.

As you say, reasonable people can disagree, but these are important questions and make a huge difference in what kind of society we want to have and what the mindset of the citizens should be.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MovingOn]

.......

[Merlinspop]

Paul, you've discussed at length the energy aspect of the LSA max weight, would you care to estimate the relative energy potential of the two types?

Easily done, Bruce. For the 757: max gross wt is 250,000# = 113,636 kg. velocity is 530 MPH = 236 m/s. So KE = 3164 MJ.

For the Mooney: max gross wt is 2500# = 1136 kg. velocity is 250 MPH = 112 m/s. So KE = 7.1 MJ.

Bottom line: the 757 had 446 times the kinetic energy of the Mooney.

I know this is off topic, and I apologize for that in advance, but the KE difference is fascinating. Huge difference and this isn't taking into account the energy stored in the fuel on board the two examples.

I used a firecracker/dynamite comparison, but explosive energy is complicated by many factors, such as the speed of the explosive, how it is placed, whether it is compacted, etc. Changing to a more straight forward comparison that's easier to picture, compare a .22 bullet with a .50BMG (the round thought of when we hear ".50Cal"). Barrel length and size/type of charge effect muzzle energy (KE), but typical energy listings I found on a quick search turned up:

.22LR - 177 Joules
.50BMG - 14,800 Joules

To achieve a factor of 446 times the energy of a .22, a projectile would have to have more than 5 times the energy of a .50Cal.
Put differently, at the same velocity as a 40grain (.0026kg) .22 bullet (370m/s), a projectile would have to weigh 1.15KG (over 2.5 pounds!) to have the same energy differential.

1/2M*V^2=KE (kg, m/s, J are the units)
177*446=78,942
370^2=136,900
M=1.1533kg=2.54lbs

Of course, I wouldn't want to be shot with a .22 either.

[FastEddieB]

"We" managed to work abortion rights into a thread titled "Power plants and dams".

I just find that perplexing, is all.

Carry on.