The Great Helicopter Riddle

Matt Welch | September 8, 2005

A week ago I asked: Where were all the helicopters? Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that "[N]o piece of equipment was more necessary than helicopters. But in the first 48 hours after the levees were breached, the shortage of helicopters became acute," and came up with this partial answer:

Because of worries that terrorists could take advantage of such chaos, FEMA now must abide by post-9/11 security procedures, such as putting air marshals on flights. That meant stranded residents couldn't be evacuated from the New Orleans airport until FEMA had rounded up dozens of Transportation Security Administration screeners and more than 50 federal air marshals. Inadequate power prevented officials from firing up X-ray machines and metal detectors until the government decided evacuees could be searched manually.

UPDATE: My eyes, though maybe not yours, glazed over at the "airport" part of the above quote, which makes the air marshal thing less of an overall factor in the helicoptering of Katrina, though no less stupid. Also, the article points to other factors, some of them contradictory, none of them wholly convincing (to me) one way or another.

Comments

Stephen VanDyke|9.8.05 @ 3:54AM|#

You just know *someone* at DHS/FEMA/TSA is dreaming up a plan to put metal detectors on helicopter rescue baskets and forming special lines for suspicious-looking evacuees.

|9.8.05 @ 4:22AM|#

because how can we be sure that an al-Qaeda sleeper agent wasn't posing as a victim, waiting for these exact events to occur, thus devastating the relief effort. We might not be able to provide basic security for last-hope shelters, but we can be assured that no helicopter will be used for terrorism.

|9.8.05 @ 6:26AM|#

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or vomit.

Jeff Smith|9.8.05 @ 7:53AM|#

JMoore said it better than I could. The lack of leadership and independent thinking on the part of the folks on the ground who waited around so that they could get all the paperwork in order is almost beyond belief. Where do they find these people?

Jeff

Doug|9.8.05 @ 7:57AM|#

You may want to re-read the graph you quoted, Matt. It is referring specifically to evacuation flights from the NO Airport (think commercial jets and such), not the rescue helicopters that were in such short supply early on. Issues with air marshalls and baggage screening were totally unrelated to the question you raised.

|9.8.05 @ 8:41AM|#

Doug,

Good point. Here's a more accurate "partial answer" to the Heli question:

"We have very limited aviation assets and rotary wing is what we need to put materials into those breaches, and that's the very asset we need to do search and rescue and save victims, so our efforts became something of a second priority and our initial plan was delayed a bit because of that," says Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers.

A FEMA spokesman said the Coast Guard and National Guard had adequate numbers of helicopters on hand, but that rescue and supply operations were hampered by other factors, including limited airspace around New Orleans, which is geographically small. "You put in 30 helicopters in that area and you create a dangerous situation," said the spokesman, Marty Bahamonde.

So, the Heli problem had more to do with A) limited assets and limited "rotary wings", B) the conflict in priority between patching the levees and delivering supplies/evac-ing strandeds, and C) limited airspace and the confusion that would arise from 30+ choppers in a relatively small area.

The X-ray and metal detector imposed a delay on flying people out of New Orleans Airport via jet, but not much with regards to the heli issue.

You have to wonder: did Matt actually read the entire article? Or did he just do a word search in his browser for "helicopter" and "evacuated"? The worst part is that it's kinda hard for the "TSA screening" thing to be an answer to the "helicopter" problem, considering that the TSA screening paragraph comes BEFORE the helicopter section.

|9.8.05 @ 8:49AM|#

Maybe it was just a comment on priorities: Rather than focusing on ways to find more helos and coordinate them, they focused on getting more TSA screeners.

|9.8.05 @ 8:54AM|#

Man, I can't read this first thing in the morning!

While I think there might me more accurate reasons then "preventing terrorism" that the heli-response was so slow (not wanting to overcrowd the air space is a valid point) it still bothers me that the possibility of a terrorist taking advantage of the situation was actually considered as a concern. There's technically always a threat of terrorism, but the possibility is so small that there it isn't really worth considering, especially in a crises when a fast response should be the number one priority.

The federal government makes me cranky.

|9.8.05 @ 9:05AM|#

Thoreau:

Oh, yeah, that's right....wait, what...?

Maybe that would be the case if all government agencies and agents were created equal, and the TSA agents who are screening people getting on jets at the airport are also the same guys in charge of getting helis in the air---but, alas, that ain't the case.

It's not like, if the TSA screeners weren't bogged down x-raying jet evacuees, they'd be out there solving the heli problem.

Furthermore, the heli problem WAS addressed in that article, and several reasons were given for the problem---none of which were the reasons Matt quoted. I did.

|9.8.05 @ 9:11AM|#

it still bothers me that the possibility of a terrorist taking advantage of the situation was actually considered as a concern. There's technically always a threat of terrorism, but the possibility is so small that there it isn't really worth considering, especially in a crises when a fast response should be the number one priority.

I agree, but, still, what better a time to launch a terrorist attack than when we're vulnerable and our government emergency agencies are in chaos? I hate to say it, but it's not too out of the realm of possibility for a sleeper to be holed up in NO, and seeing an opening for his plot in this situation, where one could board a plane sans all the typical security checks. It's unlikely, but, then, so was 9/11.

Shannon Love|9.8.05 @ 9:28AM|#

The more I read the more I become convinced that overcentralization is FEMA's primary flaw. The mismatch between the executives view of the situation, based on reports funneled up through the internal hierarchy, and news reports is a textbook failure of a overly centralized organization.

Sadly, it seems that most of the critics of FEMA at this point think the solution is that FEMA needs more power, more responsibilities and more centralized control. They're going in exactly the wrong direction.

Oh, and I agree that Matt needs to reread the article.

Mike|9.8.05 @ 9:28AM|#

I agree, but, still, what better a time to launch a terrorist attack than when we're vulnerable and our government emergency agencies are in chaos?

That would make a good movie plot. And as Bruce Scheiner always points out, planning for movie plot scenerios is crazy -- because it keeps you from doing the important stuff, like dealing with real emergencies.

|9.8.05 @ 10:01AM|#

"I agree, but, still, what better a time to launch a terrorist attack than when we're vulnerable and our government emergency agencies are in chaos?"

What are the odds of a terrorist being trained, prepped for a hijacking or plane bombing, and *pre-positioned* in a disaster zone?

If terrorists wanted to take advantage of the situation, it would be far more effective to hit someplace far away.

For one thing, a terrorist attack's effects wouldn't look all that significant in comparison to the local hurricane damage.

|9.8.05 @ 10:06AM|#

9/11 would make a great movie plot too. But it happened.

That being said, I doubt a sleeper cell in NO would be in a position to pull something off. They would be heading for high ground with everyone else. They're suicidal, but not stupid. I would be more concerned with cells in other parts of the country taking advantage of the situation. But, you would think that since Homeland Security is supposed to be able to respond to multiple, simultaneous attacks they would be able to manage for that contingency without hurting the primary relief effort.

You would think.

|9.8.05 @ 10:39AM|#

For one thing, a terrorist attack's effects wouldn't look all that significant in comparison to the local hurricane damage.

Exactly. As this week's Onion reports, "God Outdoes Terrorists Yet Again". Anything short of epic, movie-style WMD attacks would probably evoke a response of "Um, that's all you guys got?"

Flyover Country|9.8.05 @ 10:45AM|#

A bit of a tangent, but there is interesting column written by Bobby Jindal on opinionjournal.com. http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007224

Especially pertinent to libertarians:

"My office became so frustrated with the bureaucracy that we often turned to private companies. They responded more quickly and flexibly.

After our staff visited communities to assess local needs, Budweiser delivered truckloads of water and ice. Ford provided vehicles for search and rescue. Every company we contacted provided goods and services without compensation."

Larry A|9.8.05 @ 11:38AM|#

A FEMA spokesman said the Coast Guard and National Guard had adequate numbers of helicopters on hand, but that rescue and supply operations were hampered by other factors, including limited airspace around New Orleans, which is geographically small. "You put in 30 helicopters in that area and you create a dangerous situation," said the spokesman, Marty Bahamonde.

That might be true without adequate command and control. But handling air assets isn't rocket science. In Vietnam infantry lieutenants on the ground routinely directed up to a dozen helicopters in and out of clearings the size of football fields. And we had to coordinate with incoming artillery and fixed-wing aircraft.

I'll lay odds, though, that the powers that be were using no-sparrow-shall-fall FAA guidelines designed for routine situations.

|9.8.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Umm, nice try Matt. Better luck next time.

Also, BTW, it's pretty SOP for the military to move their air assets out of the way of an approaching storm, then fly them in when the storm passes. This could been another factor in this.

|9.8.05 @ 12:02PM|#

The problem here seems to that FEMA's personel and oficers feel an intense compulsion to follow teir own doctrine.

Matt Welch|9.8.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Serves me right for reading late at night ... my eyes glossed over the "airport" part of the quote; I thought it was referring to all of New Orleans.

As for the rest of the reasons in the article, they were somewhat contradictory -- Army Corps guy says they had "limited" resources, FEMA says they had plenty, the WSJ says it was a turf war between them two and the Coast Guard, FEMA guy (I think it was) said there was limited airspace (even though I'm pretty sure more than 30 helicopters a day have been flying since the weekend).... I'll keep my eyes open for other articles, and I might be interviewing the Civilian Air Patrol spokesman.

|9.8.05 @ 12:41PM|#

Matt:

I caught that conflict too, but FEMA's unbridled-optimism-esque "ahh, we're doin' juuuust fiiiine..." response is pretty much in line with the rest of their unrealistically optimistic responses to criticism. Which is to say, I buy the story from Strock, the Army COE commander, over the weak-kneed "it's all good, just not enough space in the sky" story from FEMA.

|9.8.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Matt,

Check out www.vansairforce.net for a sample of what some private pilots are doing to help, independent of CAP or any other agency. Pace Mr. Walker's latest editorial, disaster often does bring out the best in people.
I look forward to your possible interview with CAP.

TJ

Matt Welch|9.8.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Thanks, TJ!