Risky Business

While this question was central to an unforgettable scene from the “Marathon Man”, it remains central to many things going on about us. The nuclear reactors in Japan, our radiation monitoring systems, and sleepy air traffic controllers have made the news in the past week alone. The list could go on for a good while with one common thread: are we as safe as those “in the know” purport? The answer, on the other hand, is short and unsweetened: no.

Surprised? I can’t, for the life of me, understand why that might be. Think back to any household chore that involves power tools or ladders. Hopefully, before embarking on this simple task, a plan is thought out to ensure no broken bones or missing appendages at the completion of said project. Unfortunately, most plans have hidden flaws that arise at the most inopportune moment and sometime result in the very things we tried to prevent.

So the only difference between our foray onto the roof (and into the Emergency Room)and the more serious scenarios previously mentioned is the scope of the effort and the greater ramifications of those hidden flaws. How can one guarantee that a nuclear reactor and its surrounding area is absolutely safe? One can only plan for known problems using known construction techniques. Fast forward a few decades after new problems have been identified and new construction techniques have evolved. It’s too late to re-build our facility so the best we can do is continue whistling through the graveyard while employing some sort of stop-gap measures. The same applies to earthquake-proof buildings or anything else followed by “-proof” in the press release.

A few days ago, a controller fell asleep on duty at Washington’s Reagan Airport. He was the only one on duty despite concerns voiced by controllers and their union. Why? Because it was cheaper and, after all, nothing had happened like this before. So now we’ll have an investigation and put two controllers on duty for graveyard shifts. I can remember tales of flight crews going to sleep in the cockpit and overflying their destination. So much for multiple folks solving a problem, huh? No, nothing is absolutely safe and most of us realize this fact every morning as we climb out of bed. As soon as our feet hit the floor, we’re taking on some sort of risk. 

The nature of a disaster, be it natural or man-made, is bad enough, but insult is added to injury when our experts, CEO’s, and political leaders take to the podium to “reassure” us that all is under control. Why is it, then, that they seem to regularly tell us that yesterday was worse than thought while guaranteeing tomorrow to be better than today? And why do we listen? Well, we don’t seem to be listening with much attention as the credibility of those we look to for answers erodes. Yet they continue on, oblivious to the fact that their constituents can take hard truth and, in fact, prefer it over fanciful best-case scenarios that fail to materialize.

It was recently reported that almost half of the radiation monitors on the West Coast are not working. The EPA claims this is due to “quality review”. What the hell does that mean? At a time when radiation measurement is highly desirable, we continue to hear that all is well. Remember the old “Fool me once...” adage? (No, not the one W. mangled. The real one.) Somewhere in these speeches and forecasts lies truth and sensible avenues of recourse. How to separate the grains of wheat from the chaff, though, is the real challenge. And, as events become more complex, we realize that most of us aren’t smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. No, we’re still up on that roof with a broken (or missing) finger wishing we had anchored the ladder better. So maybe, we think, we’re better off not believing anything anybody says. It’s safer, right?

Whether or not we continue our nuclear power agenda or not, we must all realize that any great undertaking has risks that are in keeping with the rewards. A solution to the nuclear problem is elusive, to say the least. And convincing the powers-that-be that honesty is the best policy may be a pipe dream. Regarding the controller staffing, though, I can offer a way to avoid these lapses of consciousness: take that lone controller and give him a pair of safety glasses. Then put a carrion bird into the tower cab with him. Vultures and such are only interested in dead things so, should our controller nod off, the condor will start in on dinner. That should wake anyone up, assuming they could fall asleep in the first place! The glasses? Everyone knows that the eyes are usually the first course.

Legacies

I’ve been involved in aviation for over 40 years and, unfortunately, have seen friends and acquaintances within this arena meet their untimely end. It has not been unusual to hear of a fellow aviator “flying west”, but a rarity, indeed, to bid farewell to more than one at a time. Last month, two pilots I know from two very different areas of my aviation life were killed in a crash.

I was fortunate to have known both Chuck and Tyler, albeit in very dissimilar conditions. Chuck was a contemporary at the airline and I assisted him with union work in the late ’90’s. He was a bit senior to me so I never had the chance to fly with him, but always admired his commitment to making the profession better than when he found it. Tyler was a local pilot who I’ve known for the past ten years, or so. The crash that took his life coincided with his 25th birthday. He was probably the closest thing to a natural aviator as I’ve come across. He was flying well before his 16th birthday and, immediately upon turning that magical age that allows for solo flight, he soloed not one, but five different aircraft. Too many pilots, believing their own press releases, have been known to say, “I’ll fly it and the box it came in.” I can think of none other than Tyler who could thus boast and deliver upon it. I’m equally proud to say that he was far too modest to ever make such a claim.

The passing of these two at decidedly different points in their lives led me to think about their legacy. This is a term usually reserved to parents or celebrities of some sort and speaks to the void left by their absence. Neither Chuck nor Tyler were fathers. Nor did their demise warrant coverage (other than the crash) on any front page save for the local papers. Likewise, no other media source reported on their deaths in any detail. So much for a legacy, huh?

Contrary to this conventional wisdom, we all leave a footprint and, in passing, leave a lasting impression upon some of those with whom we have associated throughout our lives. We need not be famous nor wealthy nor a procreator. The only prerequisite is that we’ve lived to the best of our abilities and, in so doing, touched those around us. As such, both Chuck and Tyler leave a rich legacy to those that had the good fortune to know them in any capacity whatsoever.

I will always remember Chuck as dedicated and passionate. This fervor allowed him to question the status quo and be a catalyst for progress. I have no doubt that he carried this attitude into all aspects of his life and others are better for having known him.

Tyler was old beyond his years. His calm demeanor coupled with his unbridled love and commitment to aviation set him apart from most birdmen. While my aviation career has spanned more years than his, I’ve no doubt that Tyler had ventured into more aspects than I would have ever dreamed. He was the consummate aviator who will always serve as the epitome of excellence and devotion.

And so it is with each of us. We live our lives and interact with many through the course of our daily activities. Many remember us despite the fact that we may not recall them and some will be changed by the effect that we have upon them. At the very least, that is the legacy we each leave to humanity. Whether or not our passing is noted in publication or by a family left behind: our legacy lives on in those who remain. Perhaps it is best that we are unaware of its existence lest it affect our behavior. Regardless, let no one feel that a death leaves no void. My world is diminished with the loss of the two I’ve written of today. Nevertheless, in certain ways, I am their legacy as I live out my allotted days. And so it is with each of us...

What Are You?

It seems that most of us prefer short descriptives in categorizing our position on current events and the challenges they provide. You know: left, right, moderate. Or, if you prefer, Republican, Democrat, Independent. (Yes, I know I omitted the Tea Party. It is simply a faction of the Republican Party and can be found way over there on the right of the rest of the right.) Even “for” or “against” can be heard when offering a broad brush opinion. They all have one trait in common: they’re simple, short, and clear cut. The problem is that many of the issues before us today are anything but simple or short or clear.

So let’s take a short quiz to truly ascertain our priorities and political allegiances. Let’s start with the right to life: are you opposed to abortion rights and believe life is sacred? If so, how do you feel about capital punishment? How about gun control? Are you a member of the NRA and believe that guns don’t kill people, but only people kill people? If so, are you repulsed that a maniac can obtain a weapon capable of firing a large number of uninterrupted rounds and use it in a school?

If you support a free market system, I guess the latest spike in gas prices is causing you no angst nor financial pressure. We can all trust corporate America to provide safe and healthy products, can’t we? Who needs regulators and inspectors?  After all, they only stand in the way of a truly open market-based economy.

Do you want a smaller, less intrusive government and a balanced budget with no deficit? Are you ready to “adjust” your Medicare and Social Security privileges to achieve that goal? How about unemployment benefits or aid to dependent children? 

And what about all those bureaucracies, be they public or private? Surely we can pare them down a bit. But wait a minute...don’t most of us fill some sort of square within a corporate flow-chart? We’re necessary, though, aren’t we? They need our contribution, don’t they?

All of a sudden, that plain and simple description of our values gets a bit muddy, doesn’t it? As well it should. You see, many, if not most, of us move about the spectrum as the conversation changes. And sometimes we move even within a given topic. That’s because any issue at hand is much like a diamond. Or a lump of coal. Either has multiple facets and each can be flawless or seriously flawed. It all depends upon our perspective at that particular moment. To think that the world is simple is overly simplistic.

I’d say that our positions can be boiled down to two: the theoretical and the realistic. If we are not drawing unemployment benefits it is easy to say that those programs are needless. Once we lose our job, though, that theory gives way to the reality of our situation.

I suggest we use a more relaxed definition when attempting to pigeon-hole our position or anyone else’s. Me? I claim to be a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. And I know that my positions could well change depending on the realities I’m currently facing in my life. Now, some might call that schizophrenic. I prefer “complicated” and see it as more befitting in a world where nothing is as simple as we’d like.