Category: Flying

Shaesta Waiz gave some talks in the Honeywell/BendixKing booth at Oshkosh. While the company has been forcing most of its customers to convert to Garmin, e.g., by making transponders that do ADS-B OUT but not IN and by failing to come up with a replacement for the CRT-based EFIS systems that it sold through about 2008, Honeywell/BendixKing has done some work with Internet connectivity for aircraft and Ms. Waiz used their AeroWave system for her 145-day 22-country 182-hour round-the-world trip in a 2001 Bonanza. She began the flight with 750 hours of flying experience, which included 200 hours of Bonanza time and a lot of instruction by Fred Furgang, a Bonanza expert.

One of Waiz’s themes is that women need to be “empowered” and “inspired” to become pilots (so that they can join men in doing a worse job than the software in a DJI drone?). Her talk, though, suggested that women actually have an easier time accomplishing aviation projects than do men (certainly they can be hired by a U.S. major airline with much less experience; see “The purported airline pilot shortage“). She called up ICAO to tell them about her plan and the international bureaucrats there got national bureaucrats worldwide fired up to help out. Male round-the-world pilots had told Ms. Waiz to expect nightmares in Egypt regarding airspace access, airport access, and 100LL fuel access. When Ms. Waiz showed up, however, the Egyptians had assigned female air traffic controllers to every sector through which she traveled (i.e., without being inspired by Americans, Egyptian women have somehow gotten sufficiently into aviation to be able to work Center, Approach, Tower, and Ground!). When she landed, instead of being greeted by soldiers holding automatic rifles she was greeted by 11 officials from the Egyptian equivalent of the FAA.

How oppressed are women in Afghanistan, from which Waiz’s parents migrated as refugees (then reared six daughters in California, including Ms. Waiz herself)? No insurance company wanted to deal with the risk of a Bonanza in Kabul so Ms. Waiz flew there commercially from Dubai for a 2.5-day break. Cut to next slide: Waiz in a meeting with the President of Afghanistan. Would he have met with a male round-the-world pilot?

Waiz shows up to Christmas Island and finds that there are two residents with pilot certificates… both women. If more men than women are pilots in the U.S. and Europe, is this simply an example of “The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM” (Atlantic)?

Readers: Is airline promotion of more women going into aviation (example from United) a sign of righteous altruism or simply that they would like to pay lower wages as a result of larger labor supply? (like a Silicon Valley employer promoting immigration and #Resisting Trump!)

Some practical tips: Controllers outside of the U.S. and Europe aren’t accustomed to light aircraft having to deviate around weather. “Deviating right” will upset them. “Flying to Fix XYZ” is a better way to explain a decision to abandon a flight plan route. Those crazy long over-water legs are less plagued with bad weather and over-land routes. An exception is the inter-tropical convergence, a reliably horrible place to be flying due to convection (claimed the lives of those aboard Air France 447, for example, though mostly due to primitive flight control software plus pilot error).

Regardless of pilot gender ID, is flying around the world in a single-engine piston airplane a good way to inspire people regarding STEM? The engineers who created the Bonanza (first flight 1945) and its engine likely died at least 25 years ago. It is mechanics who enable continued flights in Bonanzas, not engineers or scientists. Also, isn’t flying long distances over water in a Bonanza actually ignoring what we’ve learned from engineering? Engineers have given us multi-engine and turbine-engine aircraft that render the journey much safer and more comfortable.

Full post, including comments

We attended an interesting talk by Craig Barnett of Scheme Designers at Oshkosh and learned more than we thought possible about aircraft paint. (See EAA Webinar version for the images.)

Other than working to develop new designs for manufacturers, why does his job exist? Why wouldn’t people just paint an old plane in the latest factory scheme? Barnett says that if there have been any changes in the airframe design people will look at it and perceive that someone is trying to tart up the old plane with lipstick.

Why paint any design at all? Why not paint the plane white and wrap it with plastic, the way that modern commercial vehicles are done? He said that AircraftWraps will do this for you but that the wraps don’t work as well on planes as they do on cars. Panels come off every year for inspection. Exhaust gets into the vinyl (the “tailpipe” of a plane is not at the tail). Sun exposure is bad, though solid vinyl stripes last longer than printed (Our 2005 Cirrus SR20 is all-white with some vinyl stripes from the factory and it still looks pretty good after a mostly-hangared 13 years.) Barnett’s choice for elaborate designs is to bring in an airbrush artist and put the design into paint. He does caution that any kind of paint scheme that involves a fade will be difficult to touch up if damaged.

Barnett recommended a dark color on the bottom of the plane (a “split base”) for a clean appearance (belly oil won’t show) and also for “more ramp presence” and 60-70 percent of his clients choose this. He is not a fan of the polished spinner: “painted spinners add length to the plane.” What if the whole aircraft is polished? Barnett was a fan of LoPresti Knot Wax as a sealant (I can’t find any source for this).

One of Barnett’s ideas was to consider adding a paint design to the top of the wing “so that you can enjoy it while flying.”

Wherever there is an aircraft owner wealthy enough to purchase a repaint there is a potential family court plaintiff and lawyer standing by. Barnett said “use the wife’s initials in the tail number” to reduce the risk of being sued for divorce. (The talk was in Wisconsin and therefore there was no limit on the profits that could have been earned via a casual sexual encounter during AirVenture. A litigator might want to set up shop at the adjacent BeerVenture, run by a landowner who has thus far rebuffed EAA’s attempts to buy him out; BeerVenture has a big sign promising “Bikini Bartenders”)

When it is smart to have a wild ugly paint scheme? He show ZS-OHK, a flight school’s plane in South Africa. They paint their Cessnas in crazy patterns and park them next to a road where customers are drawn in.

Barnett showed a lot of ugly and “not smart” designs. One bad idea is interrupting stripes to stick in a tail number. The tail number needs to be part of the design. Stripes should follow airflow. The tail has to balance the rest of the plane.

What about coming up with a design for a Cirrus? Barnett explained that the reason newer Cirruses are no longer simply white is that the factory worked with Sherwin-Williams (the “Jet Glo” folks) to develop paints of color (not “colored paints”!) that reflect sufficient light/heat to be used on a composite aircraft. But why are these schemes mostly so ugly? Barnett says that the challenge of designing a scheme for the Cirrus is that the plane is “pregnant” (let’s look to our own waistlines rather than blaming Duluth for this!). So a paint scheme has to distract the viewer’s eye from the fundamental shape of the airplane, unlike with, say, a TBM where the shape is inherently attractive.

Cirrus had brought some “Carbon Exterior” schemes to the show and we liked them better than any of the previous factory schemes. How to adapt this scheme to an older plane? Replace the “CARBON” on the tail with “NOT CARBON”?

Where to get all of this done? We heard good things about KD Aviation in Newburgh, New York, Flying Colors in Benton Harbor, Michigan (not to be confused with Flying Colours Corp., painters of Gulfstreams), and Corrigan in Hondo, Texas (they do Gulfstreams but somehow are also able to paint small planes at a reasonable cost).

Nobody could answer the question of why this labor-intensive craft of sanding down and refinishing airplanes has not migrated to Mexico. In fact, Mexican owners are flying their planes up to Texas for paint! Econ 101 would never have predicted that. Mexicans don’t come up to Colorado to find wood craftsmen to build stuff in their houses. Why can’t this skill be developed and practiced down in Mexico where labor is comparatively inexpensive?

[Based on my visits to U.S. paint shops, every person holding a sander up to a Gulfstream in a 100-degree hangar has identified as a man. So I had to refrain from asking when there would be a social justice movement to get Americans who identify as women into this career.]

My current dream: Strip off all of the factory stripes on the SR20. Buff the white paint. Apply wraps and decals that make the entire plane look like a golden retriever. By the time it reaches the 5-year point that Barnett says is the life of a vinyl-based job, the novelty will have worn off.

Related:

• Barnett EAA Webinar: “Designing the Perfect Paint Scheme”

Full post, including comments

I attended the EAA Innovation Forum at Oshkosh. Note the Piper Seminole, certified in 1978 with engines dating to 1955, parked in front of the adjacent “Innovation Showcase”:

Pat Anderson, a professor at Embry-Riddle, pointed out that the early jets were re-engined prop airframes. It took a few years before the wings and fuselage caught up to the new powerplant. Similarly, he thinks that electric propulsion will result in aircraft that bear little resemblance to today’s single-engine piston airplanes.

Mike Sennett, an executive at Boeing, proceeded to talk about how 800,000 new pilots will be needed to staff the 42,700 new airliners predicted for delivery over the next 20 years (the fleet will double from 2017-2037 with huge growth in Asia). Mr. Sennett noted that aviation went from being perceived as high risk in the 1920s and 1930s to being super safe now (40,000 car-related deaths per year in the U.S. versus 0 in a typical year from airliners). [One wag, noting all of the “WomenVenture” T-shirts that had been handed out to pilots identifying as female, said “Now that airline flying is risk-free they want to get women into these jobs.”] Sennett sees a lot of growth opportunity in air freight. Currently only 1 percent of freight goes by air (35 percent by value). Boeing’s big drives are autonomy, AI, and electric propulsion. Maybe those 800,000 new pilots will turn into 1 new computer program?

After the two gray-haired guys got off the stage, a bearded California hipster began speaking. Adam Warmoth, of Uber Elevate, looked to be about 25. He explained that, within 25 years (i.e., by the time he reaches “GA age”), 6 billion people will be living in cities. The result will be that transportation grinds to a halt. People will spend hours in traffic if they want to go somewhere that is not within walking distance. Uber is going to fix all of this, at least for customers that can spend about $100 per trip, with electric aircraft that can make 25-mile trips within monster cities such as Los Angeles. The goal is a 150 mph aircraft that can hold 4 paying customers. Uber is designing common reference models that manufacturers can grab and use. Their goal is to be up and running in LA by 2023(!).

Full post, including comments

I am just back from Oshkosh. Thanks to the readers who got up for my 0830 presentation on helicopter aerodynamics and maneuvers!

Let me start a series of postings on the event with Icon Aircraft, a great example of the typical path for a new general aviation manufacturer. I summarized the experience with “In case you missed the 2010 show, Icon was there with the same booth, the same promised delivery timeline, the same aircraft, and more than double the price tag.” The two-seat Icon A5 (my 2010 review) will now be over $400,000 with a few options, i.e., enough to purchase a fleet of 8 four-seat Cessnas on floats!

By contrast, Pipistrel was there with an interesting electric self-launching motor glider (complete with solar charging trailer for about $160,000; this was an already-delivered-to-the-customer plane, not a prototype) as well as their usual slate of Slovenian wonders. Cirrus also impressed with their steady stream of improvements to the SR2x series. They provided superb on-site customer support. An SR22 pilot camped near us managed to lock himself out of the plane. The Cirrus folks had thoughtfully brought a complete set of all possible keys to the show and had him back in his plane within a couple of hours. Cirrus also ran an owners’ lounge within their pavilion, complete with air-conditioning and cold drinks (though temps never got into the 90s).

Cirrus seems to be the prime force in light GA for personal transportation. The Cirrus owners’ group dinner was attended by over 700 people. Nearly every row in the campground contained a Cirrus. We met an Italian SR22T owner who flies over every year. This year it took four days to reach Oshkosh from Italy: “Once you get above 20,000′ in the Arctic there are never any clouds.” He had the plane packed with three guys, North Atlantic survival gear, etc. Cirrus is the only mass-produced and mass-maintained family airplane out there. The company had a “7,000 edition” plane parked in front of its pavilion. That’s not huge compared the 18,000-airplane-per-year rate achieved in the late 1970s (nytimes), but everyone else today seems to doing things on a hand-crafted basis. Despite having purchased an SR20 factory-new in 2005, I have been kind of a skeptic regarding the company’s claims to be revolutionizing GA. The parachute seemed like a gimmick when the engine was new. Now that it is approaching 2,000 hours I feel differently about it!

Here’s EAA’s “Innovation Showcase”. The Piper Seminole parked in front was certified in 1978. It is powered by engines that were first run in 1955.

Full post, including comments

This is mostly a note to myself, but others might use this too. Everyone listed here is speaking/teaching at EAA AirVenture 2018.

For 16 years, Ramona Cox has flown her Cessna TU-206 into highly remote and challenging wilderness airstrips SOLO air-camping for months at a time. She fishes daily and hunts with a recurve bow while dodging wolves, bear and mountain lion. (Why a 6-seat 206 for someone camping “solo”? Maybe the payload and space is for elk carcasses?)

Dick Rutan received his solo pilot’s & driver’s license on his 16th birthday. A fighter pilot in the Air Force, he flew 325 missions in Vietnam. After the Air Force, Dick joined his brother, Burt, at Rutan Aircraft Factory & flew test flight programs of many types of experimental aircraft. In 1981, he founded Voyager Aircraft to complete the first world flight.

Shaesta Waiz, founder of the non-profit Dreams Soar, Inc., flew around the world solo in a Beechcraft Bonanza A36 aircraft in 2017, becoming the youngest woman to circumnavigate the globe in a single-engine aircraft. Born in an Afghan refugee camp, Shaesta is the first certified civilian female pilot from Afghanistan. [Afghanistan has a population of over 35 million.]

Gus Hawkins: After the May 2, 2009, crash of his experimental aircraft, Mr. Hawkins found that there were no readily available resources to help pilots overcome their doubts and fears and return to flying after an accident. Back To The Cockpit endeavors to provide multiple resources to help accident pilots. [Anyone can brag about his or her successes. But it takes real courage to come out and say “I built it. I crashed it. I am here to talk about it.”]

Mark Skoog, NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center Principle Investigator for autonomy. Over the past 37 years I have supported numerous NASA and the Air Force fighter and UAV research efforts as well as initial flight test of the F-16 and B-2. Work has included integration of digital flight controls and avionics with high authority autopilots to automatically accomplish all phases of fighter combat missions as well as full vehicle autonomy.

Walter Fellows, Owner, Composite Creations Business-Gweduck Amphibian Aircraft Kit Sudied Aeronautical Engineering at University of Washington after retirement Instrument rated private pilot Previous career international and domestic investment and commercial banking

Kate Sampson, NOAA (see “Merry Christmas to the Sea Turtles“), giving Thursday and Friday afternoon talks about sea turtle flying.

Gao Yuanyang is the director of General Aviation Industry Research Center of BUAA (Beihang University of Aeronautics and Astronautics).Ph.D.,a famous general aviation industry expert,China Private aircraft owners and pilots Association (AOPA-China) deputy secretary general (talking about GA in China)

Dick Cole, the last of the Doolittle Raiders. (What kind of bravery do you need to take off from an aircraft carrier in an aircraft not designed for carrier operations and knowing that landing at an airport is unlikely?)

Readers who are going to Oshkosh: Which presentations and presenters are you excited about?

Full post, including comments

About 15 years after the introduction of reliable inexpensive digital sources of attitude (is the aircraft pitched up or down?), a slew of new autopilots was announced at Oshkosh this year:

• S-TEC 3100, from the company that made all of the Cirrus autopilots for the first 10 (pre-Garmin) years. This includes envelope protection (nudge the plane back towards a reasonable attitude if crazily pitched or banked, even while the pilot is hand-flying) and “straight and level” panic button.
• King KFC 230 AeroCruze (they defrosted a marketing expert from the 1960s to name this thing?)
• Garmin GFC 500 and GFC 600, which might be the most innovative: “Both autopilot systems drive servos manipulated by brushless DC motors and a gear train that eliminates the need for a mechanical slip clutch, both of which reduce maintenance and improve reliability and longevity.” (An avionics installer/maintainer told me that previous generations of Garmin servos/clutches were notable for requiring substantial annual inspections/tests, so it is unclear whether these work better than competitors’ legacy actuators or if they are simply better than Garmin’s legacy actuators.)

Note that these folks are mostly playing catch-up to Avidyne, which certified its DFC90 in 2012.

The ADS-B IN capability that most $100 million airliners won’t get until 2025 (or ever?) due to certification hassles is now available in a mass-market $200 version to use with your iPhone: Scout.

Separately, in this Year of Avionics, Dynon is certifying its inexpensive glass panel that has been limited to experimental (home-built) aircraft. A Cessna 172 from the 1960s can have a better panel than a new one with a Garmin G1000!

If you like things that run off electricity, why not run the whole airplane? Aero Electric seems to have revoked the laws of physics with a four-seat 2700 lb. (Cessna 172 is 2,400 lb. gross weight) battery-powered airplane with “four-hour endurance.” (With the technology of 2012, “Gasoline [had] about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery” (APS).)

No Oshkosh report is complete without mentioning Icon. They’ve delivered 6 out of 1800 airplanes ordered.

Related:

• Aviation News from Oshkosh (2014)
• Oshkosh Wrap-Up (2010)
• Some news from Oshkosh (2007)
• NBAA 2015 wrap-up report (2015; bizjet world as a contrast)
• Sun n Fun report (2017)
• my own Icon A5 review from 2010

Full post, including comments

AOPA has a comparison of the Boeing 737NG versus the Airbus A320 from a pilot’s perspective. Here are some excerpts:

As far as pilot comfort goes, the Airbus is a leap ahead of the Boeing. The 737’s forward fuselage is the same as that of the 707, which was designed in the mid-1950s. It begins tapering to the nose in the first-class cabin, and by the time you get to the cockpit it’s a pretty small tube. The Airbus keeps its beamy width all the way to the cockpit, providing a commodious workplace for the pilots.

Airbus took its time designing the cockpit, resulting in a clean, logical layout that is well marked and void of any lights during normal operations. Everything is covered in plastic, so pilots don’t see the construction details underneath. There are ample air vents to keep you cool in the summer and (optional) foot warmers to keep your toes warm in the winter. There’s plenty of room for all your baggage, two jumpseaters, and all the duty-free purchases you can bring on. There’s no massive yoke, either, so you can cross your legs if you want. There’s also a clever table that extends from the panel on which to lay your charts/iPad or crew meal. No eating off your lap like in the 737. Finally, the Airbus cockpit is noticeably quieter than the 737.

Speaking of landings, the Airbus is much easier to land smoothly and, for pilots, it goes a long way to stroke our already-inflated egos. If you can consistently grease a 737NG landing, you’re a better pilot than most. The problem with that airplane, especially the long-bodied models, is that it lands so fast. Because tail strikes are a big threat for the long, low-slung airplanes, approach speeds are in the 150- to 160-knot range, which is about 40 knots or more above stall speed. All that extra speed keeps the long-bodied 737s flat to avoid tail strikes, but it also causes them to skip right back in the air at initial touchdown—just a few inches. It’s just long enough for the ground-spoiler system to sense wheel spin, at which point the spoilers deploy—right now! And it’s that second plop to the ground that makes the NGs one of the more difficult airplanes to consistently land well.

This also brings up a safety issue. There have been more than a few runway overruns in long-bodied 737s. They are heavy, they land fast, and they have only four main-wheel brakes—unlike a 757, which has eight brakes. Pilots who like to use all of the runway’s touchdown zone trying to squeak out a good landing are playing with fire in this airplane, especially on wet or contaminated runways. Remember, style points don’t count if you run off the end of the runway.

Separately, I’m wondering if the passengers on Flydubai 981 would all still be alive had that airplane operated Airbus A320s with envelope protection. The cause of the crash is thought to be improper stick-and-rudder handling? An Airbus would therefore have protected itself and the passengers by preventing a stall. On the third hand, AirAsia 8501 was supposedly stalled by the pilots. Wikipedia says that with the autopilot disconnected they also lost any envelope protection.

Young pilots: Think JetBlue!

[Also in the same issue, we learn that there is only one thing worse than starving as a freelance aviation photographer: “I was a Java coder and I couldn’t take it anymore.”]

Full post, including comments

This is the time of year when everyone in the general aviation world strives to get stuff finished so that it can be shown at Airventure (“Oshkosh”). Things got off to a bad start with a USA Today expose on the dangers of flying around in 60-year-old machines flown by 75-year-old guys all regulated by FAA and NTSB bureaucrats who set deadlines for technological progress by reference to the timeline for the Sun entering its Red Giant phase.

The most exciting little airplane of 2010 was the Icon A5 amphibious seaplane. Deliveries were promised for 2011. I didn’t attend this year’s Oshkosh but apparently the company proudly showed off a prototype made from production tooling. This will be used for FAA-required tests in hopes of customer deliveries in 2015 (press release).

Honda is at roughly the same stage with the HondaJet, promising deliveries in 2015 as well. (release) The original delivery date was 2010.

Cirrus is claiming that its long-delayed single-engine jet will finally ship by “end of 2015” (i.e., for New Year’s Eve). The plane was first flown in 2008.

Terrafugia, whose flying car I wrote about in 2009 (posting), did not bring a flyable aircraft to Oshkosh, indicating that 2015 might be an optimistic date for delivery to customers.

BendixKing (Honeywell) introduced a retrofit glass panel for turboprops such as the Beechcraft King Air. This could be exciting for about 700 owners of legacy Pilatus PC-12 who have not spent the $200,000+ to put in a Garmin G600 panel.

How is the aviation world doing? If you reflect on the fact that the proven way to add safety is a two-pilot crew, airline-style, the pace of progress in general aviation is indeed slow enough to lend credence to the USA Today series. (See my 2008 article http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/ground-monitoring, for example, for what might help.) As noted in this posting and associated comments about a recent Gulfstream crash, the level of systems integration and useful automation in piloted aircraft seems destined to remain low. If we take that as a given then the only way to achieve safety is via a two-pilot crew running checklists. Certainly the USA Today idea of bringing the entire general aviation fleet up to 2014 certification standards is not practical and probably wouldn’t even be very helpful. An original 1956 Cessna 172 can probably be flown more safely by a two-pilot crew than the latest four-seat propeller-driven airplane can be by a single pilot, who might be tired, distracted, or overwhelmed by circumstances.

Perhaps there is a product idea here. If the full two-pilot crew via telemetry idea (link above) is not practical, why not a self-contained robot second pilot in the aircraft? The robot would look at all of the gauges with a little camera, listen to the radio and intercom, and be able to say things like “Do you want to run the climb checklist?” and “You’re two miles from the final approach fix; shouldn’t you be putting in flaps and and slowing down?” and “You’re at 500′ above the runway and still working on the power, gear, and flaps. Should you go around and trying again to achieve a stabilized approach?” The robot could get additional inputs from the latest generation of portable AHRS and ADS-B boxes with WiFi/Bluetooth (see the Stratus and Garmin GDL 39).

Full post, including comments

Oshkosh has the following segments:

• the general carnival atmosphere the results from bringing together hundreds of thousands of people
• gearheads and engineers showing off new technology that they claim will revolutionize some aspect of aviation
• certified airplane companies who have hired engineers and have worked through or are working through the FAA bureaucracy in an attempt to put all of the pieces together legally before running out of money
• light sport airplane companies (nearly 100?) that have collectively sold about 1750 two-seat airplanes and that hope to sell a lot more by promising consumers simplicity and economy
• displays of amazing pilot technique by aerobatic competitors and military pilots plus families who come in primarily to see the daily airshow
• individuals who fly ordinary airplanes to Wisconsin every year to socialize with others who share their love of aviation
• individuals who have restored antique airplanes
• individuals who have built, and sometimes designed, their own aircraft

In many ways, my favorite groups were the last two: antique airplanes and homebuilt. These are folks whose interest in aviation is closest in spirit to ancient human dreams: escaping the Earth and getting a bird’s eye view. The home-builders are also the most inclusive. My favorite was a 249 lb. all-metal low-wing airplane called the “Hummel” (site). It qualifies as an ultralight and requires no license to fly. With 37 HP it can lift a 200 lb. pilot, full fuel (5 gallons), and still be 70 lbs. under gross weight. With a 45 mph approach speed and hardly any instruments, there is no need for a 7000′ runway, control tower, and instrument landing system. Given the objectives of the pilots of the Hummel (short, local, daytime flights in excellent weather), they can probably be safe after just 10 or 20 hours of training.

Although the range of homebuilders includes some who are superb craftsmen, some who have done significant engineering work, and some who are expert and highly experienced pilots, the message is “anyone can do this”. And indeed there are quick-build kits, factories who provide builder assistance, and airplane designs that are extremely slow and forgiving.

As far as the most significant innovation on display, my vote goes to envelope protection for light airplanes. Introduced on the Airbus A320 in 1988, envelope protection discourages or prevents pilots from stalling or overspeeding an airplane. Stalls often lead to spins and are a common source of low altitude maneuvering accidents, e.g., by pilots preparing to land. Envelope protection is now available in the Avidyne autopilot, an easy retrofit to the popular Cirrus four-seater, and in new airplanes with the Garmin G1000 panel (“Garmin ESP”). This technology would have saved the passengers of Colgan 3407 (previous post).

Full post, including comments

Oshkosh is a great place to see the might and cleverness of the U.S. military on display. Our cargo planes were represented from the C-47 (DC-3), celebrating its 75th anniversary, right through the modern C-130, C-17, and C-5. Fights from World War II, such as the P-51 Mustang, were heavily represented. The crowd was shocked, awed, deafened, and shaken by heavy modern jet fighters. Our ground operations were represented by an MRAP, a made-in-Oshkosh $500,000 replacement for the Hummer (at least $5 billion in taxpayer funds will be spent on this program). The one guy who does not seem to be impressed by our fancy technology, i.e., Osama bin Laden, was nowhere to be found among the crowd.

The quasi-military branches of government were showing off as well. The TSA had a booth where they explained all of the great new stuff that they’re doing. Customs was there to show off its new reporting requirements for arriving and departing the U.S. Technically these guys have grown the GDP by making the procedures so difficult and time-consuming. The companies that formerly assisted aviators in dealing with Third World bureaucracies, such as Sudan’s, are now making money helping people travel between the U.S. and Canada in Cessna 172s. The Border Patrol had a booth trying to recruit 3000 new agents to work on the southern border. I asked how hard that could be, with 15 million Americans being unemployed. The agent responded “It just opened up last week; we haven’t hired anyone for about a year.” The Border Patrol brought in an Astar. Apparently the Department of Homeland Security keeps Americans safe from Mexican workers by sending $2 million over to France for a helicopter and some spare parts and then sending additional funds to Hugo Chavez to buy jet fuel to keep the machine flying in circles.

Full post, including comments