Or remember the U.S. Army barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, when a Mercedes truck packed with 12,000 pounds of high explosives set off what is believed to have been the largest nonnuclear explosion in history, leveling the facility and killing 241 American servicemen.

Pretty clearly not. The Mont Blanc explosion leveled large parts of Halifax, just for one example.

I think he meant intentional explosion - the Mont Blanc disaster was an accident.

Good article. It's nice to read something that's not hysterical for a change.

Even if you only include intentional explosions, the British had 22,000 pound Grand Slam bombs in WW II, altho I don't know how much of that was explosive. There were also other explosions -- The British and Canadians blew up a ship in a German occupied harbor in France, St. Nazaire? Ammo ships and fuel tankers were intentionally targeted and had thousands of tons of explosive go off. Heck, even the Arizona explosion at Pearl Harbor was a magazine explosion and certainly had more than 6 tons of explosives go off.

Naw, I think Patrick has finally made a mistake :-)

but wouldn't the type of explosive determine the yield along with the total weight? I don't think gunpower packs quite the punch of C4 for example.

I believe they are substantially more powerful then even the World War II ones.

Even hunting weapons show this, because an old enough shotgun may not be strong enough to fire modern ammunition.

Be nice to hear the source that claimed the Beirut explosion as the biggest, just for curiosity's sake.

I think the FAA response was sensible and useful. If a pilot is in contact with air traffic control and finds herself unable to make a tight turn, then controllers can give her safe vectors through the La Guardia airspace. Already being in contact with ATC can give you more options in an emergency.

Patrick Smith must have meant "largest non nuclear explosions in a military campaign". If that's what he intended, he might be close.

According to Wikipedia, the Beirut barracks bombing had an explosive yield of 12,000lbs of TNT[1], or 0.006 kilotons (kt)

The GBU-43 has an explosive yield of approximately 0.025 kt[2], but has never been used operationally.

The BLU-82 contains 12,600lbs of explosive material (GSX slurry)[3], but I've not been able to find the explosive efficiency of the explosive to calculate the yield of the bomb -- I would guess that it is greater than 1, making it greater than the Beirut explosion. This bomb has been used operationally.

The Grand Slam Bomb [4] used by the British in WWII contained 9,135 lbs of Torpex explosive, which has an explosive efficiency of 1.5[5], for a total yield of roughly 0.007kt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions is a list of the largest non-nuclear explosions.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_bomb

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpex

Great column as always, Patrick. I'm grateful for voices of reason like you and AOPA president Phil Boyer.

One aspect of this latest furor that most commentators haven't touched on is wealth envy. A lot of the anti-general aviation rhetoric I've heard and read focuses on "those millionaires" and "those rich people" and their private planes. Some people seem to view all private pilots as just rich people playing with their expensive toys. And because not everyone can afford to have a plane and avoid the hassle of airline travel, then no one should get that benefit. They either don't know or ignore the fact that a typical used Cessna 152 (for example) is half as expensive as a luxury car.

Of course, the nay-sayers will claim that they are more concerned with safety/terrorism. But if you look at their true motivation, in many cases you will find something much uglier under the surface - jealousy and wealth envy.

I'm a little disturbed to hear people insisting that their right to entertain themselves at high speed over the nation's largest city is more important than people's lives. So, no one was killed in the apartment building? No harm, no foul, right?

Tell that to the woman who was badly burned. "Hey, sorry, they were goofing off and it got out of hand, sucks to be you, huh?"

Tell it to the people who live in the building whose lives are turned upside down. Insurance doesn't cover everything, you know.

So it doesn't happen very often. But why should it be happening at all? These flights serve no purpose other than providing dangerous jollies to small plane pilots. Why should a handful of pilots be allowed to endanger an entire city? Especially since there are no limits to their inexperience or skill?

This is just another example of a privileged class of people cruising (literally) through the lives of everyone else with no thought to the possible consequences. But unlike mountain climbers, these pilots can and do harm others.

I'm not sure the sky over Manhattan is the best place for a novice to take instructions from his flight instructor. Couldn't they practice over much less populated areas? I don't mean that all flight instruction needs to take place in Montana, but if they had flown 20 miles west out of Teterboro instead of 20 miles east, the population density would be lower by a factor of 100. This is certainly not the first small plane to crash in a highly populated area. Couldn't the government require newer pilots to stick to uncrowded areas, just as they require inexperienced drivers to drive with few passengers while avoided late evening hours?

We fear what we don't understand. And there is much ignorance in the world about those "small airplanes." There are three major myths that I'll touch on. 1. BEING IN TOUCH WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SOLVES EVERYTHING. Being in contact with an air traffic controller would not have been any guarantee that Lidle would have flown his airplane any better. Think in terms of being lost in a car and on a cell phone call to a friend trying to guide you home. Could that phone friend keep you from running off the road and hitting a tree? Of course not. 2. HE DIDN'T FILE A FLIGHT PLAN. The main purpose for a flight plan for small planes like Lidles is to assist search and rescue. It doesn't guarantee that a pilot will be in a certain place at a certain time. Another car analogy: think of it like an AAA TripTicket. Can you deviate from the route they give you? You bet. 3. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER CONTROL OF THE RADAR. Radar is not like the Enterprise's tractor beam. It can't tell you where to go or keep you from going somewhere. It can only tell the person watching the screen -- with varying degreees of accuracy - -that "something" is out there.

If this accident upsets you, it should. Any accident is upsetting. Have you ever drvien by a grisly scene of twisted steel next to a highway and become upset? Sure, because you know someBODY is in there and probably badly hurt. Lidle had an accident. His was just 300' above the ground. Accidents happen all the time. Do you want ZERO accidents? Then throw away all the keys to anything that moves...cars, trucks, boats, RVs, ATVs, and so on. Close the hospitals. Close Disney World. Accidents happen in all those things and in all those places all the time. The real issue here is that we're all on razor's edge since 9-11. That's perfectly understandable. But are we going to stop living, stop everything that moves? Freedom of movement is one of our most precious freedoms. If you don't believe me, go to an airport and take an intro flight some time. For about $75 you'll see this beautiful world from a truly wonderful perspective... and you will instantly understand why people of all economic strata (for about $10,000 you can buy a terrific little plane) to spend their time learning how to fly and be part of a very special experience that's open to everyone.