Different Jolmohals And There Locations Environmental Sciences Essay

Different Jolmohals And There Locations Environmental Sciences Essay The fisheries sector of Bangladesh is a quick yielding sector, which augments growth and can contribute to poverty reduction. The 4.57 million hectors of available inland water bodies contribute 80% of the total fish production and offers a great opportunity for the poor fishing community to have an improved income through increased production. 12.2 million People use this water bodies as their source of income (both direct and indirect) that comprises 24.6% of the total employment of Bangladesh. Around 0.77 million fishermen are dependent on the availability of public water bodies for their livelihood. However, in spite of having abundance of inland water resources, the fisheries sector is not experiencing its full potential growth in terms of employment generation, increased production and demand for nutrition because of the improper distributions of these inland water resources. Most of the fishers are poor and in the fisheries sector this poverty is associated with economic exclu sion from high value water bodies, social marginalisation of traditional fishers, class exploitation by moneylenders and leaseholders, and political disempowerment from decisions affecting fisher livelihoods. The inland fisheries sector includes baor, coastal aquaculture, river and estuaries, beels and haors, lake, flood plains, canals and ditches and together they called Jolmohal. A more formal definition of jolmohal according to the Jolmohal management policy 2009 is Jolmohal is a waterbody where water remains in some times or throughout the year and is known as Haor, Baor, Beel, Jheel, Pond, Ditch, Lake, Dighi, Khal, River, Sea etc. Such Jolmohals can be closed or open. Closed Jolmohal will have defined boundary whereas open Jolmohal will not. The power of distributing this jolmohal among the people is held by the government. However, it has been noted that this distribution is not fair. Most of the benefit is being enjoyed by the middlemen and other powerful non- fisher people. This is creating a financial as well as a social cost. Social welfare is suffering; the neediest people are being ignored. But the government has an obligation towards them and there needs should get priority and policies should be taken to ensure that. Different Jolmohals and There Locations: As stated earlier jolmohal is a water body, which consist of different types of inland fishery sector and they can be found in different areas of the country. As a first step in trying to sort out a rather complex situation, it is helpful to distinguish different types of naturally occurring water bodies. In addition to rivers and floodplains, this category includes a number of other entities that are outlined below Figure: Types of naturally occurring water body Name Definition Where found Haor Low lying depressions between two or more rivers functioning as small internal drainage basins North-East Beel Lakelike depressions, sometimes found within haors retaining water permanently or for the greater part of the year. Adjoining beels may merge into a single continuous sheet of water under a unified floodplain during the wetter part of the year Almost everywhere Khals Drainage channels connecting beels to adjacent rivers Almost everywhere Baor Ox-bow lake made of former meandering bends in river that got cut-off from the main stream. Not strictly part of the open-water system Jessore,Jhenaidah, Kushtia Beyond this, and with regard to the wider category of water bodies as a whole, a number of further distinctions are important. Individual water bodies may be: Naturally occurring or constructed by individuals and communities. For example- Kaptai Lake. The only large artificial inland is Kaptai reservoir formed as a consequences of hydro- electric dam completed in 1963 and which has flooded over 76,600 ha of pristine forested valleys and cultivated land in the Chittagong hill tracks. State (khas) or privately owned Closed where fish cannot move beyond their boundaries and can therefore readily be privately appropriated or open where they can move freely. Open access or leased for private individual use Seasonal in which case all fish must be harvested in a single season, or perennial with potential to build up stocks for harvesting in later years Waqf estates and Debottar property, which support Muslim and Hindu religious organisations respectively. Policies and issues taken over the YEARS: From the British period to the present day, a number of fisheries policies, regulations and acts have been introduced for the management of water bodies and other fishery resources. Prior to 1757 fishers and farmers had customary rights over open water fisheries including rivers, land depressions, lakes, oxbow lakes and floodplains. At that, time fisheries were managed by local fishing community as common property under various system of tenure. During early stages of British administration, fishers had some customary rights over all water bodies. The situation changed in 1793 when Zamindars were granted rights (jalmohal) over rivers and other waters under the Permanent Settlement Act which was designed to generate revenue for the Colonial Government. As with land, these were then sub-divided among jotedars, using a leasing system that has continued with only slight modification until the present day. In the large majority of cases, the lessees (Ijaradars) were not fishermen themselves. The fishermen they controlled were low caste Hindus. The most able of these over time became informal managers, collecting tolls and taxes on behalf of the jotedars. Muslims generally did not fish, but some lower status Muslims did became traders. Therefore, during the 19th and 20th centuries the colonial state created a legal and regulatory framework, which favored landlords and leaseholders who were drawn largely from the non fishing class and groups and who increasingly saw their water tax rights as valuable commercial and financial assets t hat needed to be protected from unauthorized fishers. The fishers had to come to some agreement with them in order to survive. After the partition of India in 1947, the new state of Pakistan abolished the zamidari system in 1950 and took control of waterways through the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 and the Department of Revenue assumed responsibility for all jalmohal outside Reserved Forest areas. Therefore, a large number of these water bodies were now owned by the state but property rights over them was temporarily transferred to the fishers mainly through a leasing process. From 1950 to 1965, open auction of leasing water bodies started where highest bidder were granted lease. The method of fixing the maximum revenue prior to auction was to average the last three terms lease value than to increase it by 10%. In fixing the lease value, the productivity of fishery was not considered. The aim of the leasing policy was to raise state revenue. However, during 1965 in an attempt to help poor fishermen, preference in the granting of jamohal was given to fishermens co-operative societies registered with the Dept of Co-operatives After the independence the government of Bangladesh took several policies in regard to the jolmohal management which have been described below- 1973- 1974: Preference was given to registered fishers cooperatives in leasing out the water bodies provided the cooperative agreed to pay highest bid money, the numbers of which as a result mushroomed. However, this provision was easily circumvented, with former Ijaradars generally using co-ops as fronts, taking jalmohals on sublease arrangements and retaining effective control. 1974- 1984: Under a presidential order, all jalmohals were transferred from MOL to the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. Initial attempts were made to move from purely revenue-based to more sustainable systems of management, but before this could not be fully implemented. Restrictions placed on leasing out water bodies to the registered fisher cooperative societies through negotiation for 1-year lease for river and canal and 3 year lease for closed and semi closed types of fisheries such as lake, boar and ponds. If such a fishers association was not available or the terms and conditions of lease were not acceptable to the government then the water bodies would put up for open auction where anybody including the non-fishers could bid. 1984 1986: Leasing to the fishers cooperative societies through negotiation was replaced by open auction system but limited to fishers cooperative societies. Open auction system of leasing water bodies was subsequently changed to bidding by sealed tender system, all other conditions remaining unchanged. Jalmohals 20 acres reverted to MOL control. 1986- 1995: To ensure biological management of fishery resources and to establish the right of fishers to water bodies a licensing introduced under the New Fisheries Management Policy (NFMP) in 1986 in selected location and the affected jalmohals were placed under direct management of the Department of Fisheries. The aim of this policy was to reserve some water bodies for genuine fisherman defined as those who depended on full time fishing for livelihoods. The leasing system was abolished and fishing rights were directly licensed to fishers. Credit was made available, and different institutional arrangements (including NGO management) were explored. Progress was slow, with MOL unwilling to give up its major source of income under circumstances where net revenue from land was very small and other vested interests were opposed. Annual gear specific harvests were introduced to ease the pressure on fisheries by regulating the harvests. Limited user rights to genuine fishermen were meant to ensure that they received a greater share of the fishing income. Nevertheless, this had limited success and government revenue decreased; fishers sometimes failed to pay license fees on time because of the failure to link the license fee with the productivity and biological potential of the water bodies, so for many fishers the license fees were too high and increased yearly which overtime put them out of reach of many. In addition, non-fishers continued to control water bodies assisted by wealthier fishers. Because of the failure, this policy ended in 1996 since when project based approaches involving communities have been adopted. 1995- 1996 (Open Access Policy): Leasing system for flowing rivers was abolished and fishing was declared open to all free of cost except to those who catch fish by using mechanized boats. The policy was established for the benefit of poor fishers but as there was, no control fishing pressure increased greatly and threatened fish stocks. Additionally influential people and mastans were reported as controlling the rights to river water bodies in some areas and to have harassed and exploited fishers. Community Based Fisheries Management Project: The CBFM Project started field activities in different locations from late 1995 to mid 1997. The project is a partnership of government (DOF), five NGOs Caritas, Proshika, BRAC, Banchte Shekha and CRED, and ICLARM. CBFM is a partnership arrangement where management responsibility is shared between the government and fishing communities. Under this approach, the users can participate to the management of fisheries to ensure its sustainable use and equitable distribution of benefits. The Fourth Fisheries Project: This project started in 2000, involved the NGOs extensively for empowering the fishing community so that the community of project beneficiaries, i.e., the fishers, could retain the benefits of mitigatory and compensatory interventions undertaken by the project. The project involved 14 NGOs in 49 sites for empowering community institutions. In essence, they were posted to ward off the capture attempts made by the rural elites by empowering the fishers. The Water Body Management Policy 2005 and its shortcomings: Although the 2005 policy aimed at ensuring full access of poor fishermen into the public water bodies, however there were several drawbacks and constraints in its implementation as follows: The revenue centric policy only allowed the affluent people to get lease and left out the poor fishermen. Did not specify the property rights of the lease holder to be bankable. Insufficient coordination and discussion on the leasing strategies among the relevant ministries and stakeholders. Lack of encouragement and involvement of private sector investment. The short term leasing policy held back the fishermen from introducing any scientific cultivation method. Jolmohal Management Policy 2009: The government adopted the Jalmahal Management Policy-2009 with the cabinet approval on June 23 through bringing some changes to that of 2005. These changes or amendments are- While the Upazilla fisheries officer will recommend whether the shamity members are actually fishermen or not, the Upazilla Water Body Management Committee will prepare and finalize the fishermen group living adjacent to a particular water body. The management committee headed by a deputy commissioner (DC) is authorised to lease out khas jalmahal among the community. Local lawmakers have been made advisers to the district and upazila committees with the upazila chairmen alternative advisers to the upazila committees Any fishermen community / group / shamity living adjacent to an water body will be become the beneficiary of that particular water body. The lease period for the closed water bodies up to 20 acres has increased to 3 years from only 1 year. The lease-holders are not allowed to sub-lease the water bodies and must use it only for fish production. The Upazilla and District water body management committee will consist of representatives from the private sector, civil society, department of agriculture and law enforcement agency. The District Commissioner (DC) will annually update the list of public water body and notify in the notice board, local dailies and websites for the stakeholders. The public water bodies under different ministries will be allocated to the fishermen or samity instead of previous target group. The commercial banks and financial institutions will provide loan to the fishermen or their community in order to scientifically manage the leased water bodies. A database will be prepared and updated with information regarding the public water bodies of the country. Ministry of land will introduce public private partnership to manage the water bodies for improving the lives of the fisherman. A coordination committee comprising of concerned ministries will be formed at national level for the proper management of public water bodies. Even though the Jolmohal Management Policy 2009 is a better policy than the previous one, but still there are some problems regarding this policy, they are- Jalmahal management policy does not effectively safeguard the interests of the actual grassroots fishermen. The provision for keeping local lawmakers and upazila chairmen as advisers in the management committee will create scope for politicisation and conflict. The genuine fishermen community will not be benefited with a management dominated by bureaucrats In summary from the 18th century to the present, Bangladeshs jolmohals management has been dominated by private leasing and controlled by non- fishers business and political elites. Most of the policies and rule instituted during this period led to a transfer of property rights from the traditional fishers to the socially powerful agents, the leases and other commercially non- fishers interest. Reasons for the failure of these policies The polices taken over the years to manage the jolmohal by the government hasnt been successful as the genuine fishermen didnt get the benefit but the middle man enjoyed it. Therefore, social welfare actually did not increase. To look it more closely we can take each of this policy and examine their problems. The first policy taken was, lease system, which was used to increase the government revenue, so lease was granted to the highest bidder. Due to lack of capital and the control of local political authorities by non fishing interest group fishers were outbid or there cooperative was controlled by outside finances and the lease was allocated to the non-fishing population who wanted to make profit, which did not help the poor fishermen. Similarly, the open auctioning system failed which also granted the right to the non-fishing population. The problem with the licensing system was that while determining the license fee they did not link it with the productivity and biological potential of the water bodies. Therefore, for many fishermen the licensee fee was too high. In addition, government failed to provide them with technical financial support, there was also a continuous threat from other interest group. This put a pressure on the fishermen and the benefit from the licensing declined. Another policy taken was, open access fishing. As with the other policy, in this case also the influential people controlled the rights to river water bodies. Furthermore, the open access system put a pressure on the resource since to maximize the profit nobody gave a thought to the issue of sustainability. To overcome the problem with the middlemen the NGOs stepped in and there intervention helped many but in time some corruption was also noted. Most of the time they were given free rein so they had the tendency to exploit the power. The recent jolmohal policies have considered the environmental aspects, restricted the subleasing system and the intervention of the non- fishing community. However, since all this have to done on the district level there is still sufficient chance of the middlemen and other local powerful interest groups intervention. Therefore, there is a good possibility that this policy will not be successful in ensuring the welfare of the fishermen. Possible Solution As we can see, no form of ijahara or leasing process has been very successful in ensuring the welfare of the fishers. There can be several possible solutions to this but the most effective would be to create an aquaculture for the fisherman. In other words, the fishing right should be given to the fishers directly for a long period, at a minimum cost to enable them to pay the amount and the government should oversee the progress. This will save them from the middlemens intervention. If the fishers have the exclusive right to fish then they themselves would think of the sustainability issue and this will also give them incentive, so productivity will increase. This right to the fishermen should be given on a community basis. The government revenue may decrease from this process but they can earn more revenue from the export of the fish. To improve the situation and to protect the genuine fishermen, they need to be empowered with monetary and logistic help and capacity building. For th is purpose, the government needs to give them the support. Therefore, instead of an ijahara process if there is a cooperation among the government and the fishers then there is a possibility of increased in fishers welfare. Conclusion As we have seen from the earlier discussion that the proper distribution of jolmohal is very important both from the financial and social perspective. However, the policies taken since 1757 have only been successful in depriving the fishermens from their natural right to fish from the water and the situation has worsened overtime. To improve the situation the only possible and viable solution possible is the cooperative one because a proper and necessary monitoring is not possible of the ijhara system which is increasing the social cost and benefiting the non-fishers. Therefore, government needs to consider the cooperative system to ensure the welfare of the fishers. References: Islam ,Gazi Md. Nurul. Abdullah, Nik Mustapha Raja. Viswanathan, K. Kuperan. Yew ,Tai Shzee . AUGMENTING FISHERS WELFARE AND LIVELIHOOD ASSETS THROUGH COMMUNITY BASED MANAGEMENT IN BANGLADESH Thompson, Dr. Paul. FISHING RIGHTS AND ACCESS MACH THOMPSON, P.M., P. SULTANA, M.N. ISLAM, M.M. KABIR, M.M. HOSSAIN and M.S. KABIR. An Assessment of Co-management Arrangements Developed by the Community Based Fisheries Management Project in Bangladesh CBFM Project 1999 Government Jolmohal Management Policy, 2009 Ministry of Land; 23 June, 2009 Govt to revise Jalmahal Management Policy to increase fish production The Financial Express 8 September 2008 Inland Open Water Management Jalmahal policy wont help grassroots fishermen The Daily Star , 26 July,2009 LAND POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IN BANGLADESH, CARE SDU Reports and Studies, Land policy Literature Review Final, May 2003 Public Water Body Management Policy 2009 Beginning of a new era for the poor fishermen of Bangladesh News Issue 3, 18 August 2009

Problem of Proliferation :: essays research papers

The Problem of Proliferation There is a controversy as to the meaning of proliferation. Proliferation is the process of deadly weapons being bought and sold in the market place of corruption and greed. Government leaders are playing a deadly game by implementing creation of foreign policies that are set to obtain goals, yet sponsor actions that contradict those goals. The chapter argues that we must be able to evaluate the facts and separate them from our emotions concerning the situation. The Problem of Defining Proliferation Henry Sokolski stated in 1993 that even the intelligence community has not been able to define the term proliferation adequately. The military, intelligence agencies, terrorist organizations and diplomats will all define the term differently because of their different perspectives. Although there is controversy in the exact meaning, I feel that the basic meaning is evident, which is nations who do not possess the deadly weapons of mass destruction attempt to obtain them by illegal methods. The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear proliferation is the most feared form of proliferation, while terrorism is the most feared force that is suspected of having the ideological motivation ant the ways that the knowledge and resources are obtained to make it a real threat. A non-proliferation treaty was signed by a group of nations whom called themselves the â€Å"Nuclear Club.† This group considers themselves as being the arbitrators of the control of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. There are states who argue this saying that they have the right to possess the weapons for their security. Scott Sagan argues this idea fearing that it may cause a chain reaction with other nations obtaining and even making their own nuclear weapons. Proof of this theory was made clear when explosions occurred during testing of weapons by Pakistan and India in May of 1998. The contradictions have been made evident and public in several articles and reports. In in 1995 the United States Department of Strategic Command suggested that the U.S. should give, as part of it’s persona that it will become â€Å"irrational and vindictive if it’s vital interest are attacted†. USA Today, in 1997 contained two articles in the same paper that contradicted each other. One of the articles stated that Chinese Military is developing high-tech weapons to win a war against the United States and the other was the US may sell nuclear technology to China. In 1998 Joseph Douglas Jr.

Does the Pursuit of Human Rights Strengthen or Weaken the Structure of International Society?

The concept of human rights can be traced as far as back as the theories of Natural Law which proposed the existence of universal moral standards, and Charter rights such as the Magna Carta. [1] However, they began to rise in importance after the horrors of the Second World War and then towards the end of the Cold War, which gave us many core human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 2] Solidarists would claim that this increasing pursuit of human rights strengthens the structure of international society because as the fundamental members of the international community, the rights of individuals should take priority over the rights of states, and that this should be the main purpose of the United Nations. [3] However, even if the rights of individuals should be prioritised, it is crucial to preserve Westphalian principles to maintain international order.This essay will use a realist lens to argue that individuals are best served b y protecting the rights of states, and therefore the integrity of the state should always be maintained. It will demonstrate how this prioritisation of national interests has meant that in fact the pursuit of human rights has neither strengthened nor weakened the structure of international society, but rather has been used as a tool by states to preserve the status quo and maintain their position as the most powerful actors in international relations.It is possible to argue that to a certain extent the pursuit of human rights strengthens the structure of international society, if the structure of international society is taken to mean humans and the ways in which they interact. Solidarists would argue that individuals and not states are the ultimate members of international society and as such their rights should take precedence over norms of statehood like sovereignty and non-intervention. 4] Respecting human rights enables people to have personal security and freedom from violence , as well as freely pursue their social goals, thereby preserving order and strengthening international society. [5] Since the end of the Cold War many human rights treaties have been ratified and these are important because they provide non-state actors and individuals with something to which they can hold states accountable in the face of human rights abuses. 6] These treaties have also been important in creating a ‘human rights culture’, which is significant because it means that states are more pressured by their citizens to preserve and actively promote the preservation of human rights. [7] This was observed in the United States of America (USA) where domestic pressure led to the decision to intervene in Somalia. [8] This serves to strengthen international society because it empowers individuals to have a greater influence on international interactions.Additionally, solidarists would claim that the pursuit of human rights illustrates an underlying universal moralit y. [9] The recognition of this universal morality would help to align the behaviour and interactions of humans across the world, hence strengthening international society itself. However, even if individuals are taken to be the ultimate members of international society, it is states that form the structure of it because they are the means by which international relations occur.Hedley Bull argues that international society would be better served by upholding Westphalian principles because these help preserve order, as the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention prevent states from constantly invading each other and destabilising international society. [10] As individuals have chosen to politically organise themselves into states, the protection of the state should be paramount as the state is the arbiter of rights as well as the defence against foreign belligerence, enabling the preservation of freedom from violence and social security.Therefore, Westphalian principles are cru cial to the structure of international society because they ensure the integrity of the state and thus the protection of the individual. From this point of view it would seem that the pursuit of human rights actually weakens the structure of international society. In theory, important aspects of the human rights regime like humanitarian interventions and the International Criminal Court (ICC) threaten the integrity of states because they compromise Westphalian principles.One of the reasons the USA does not support the ICC is that it could potentially have universal jurisdiction without needing state consent. [11] Human rights treaties impose upon states external standards of justice which assume a universalism to the morality of human rights which cannot be proven to exist, thus compromising their freedom of action. [12] However, although the principle of pursuing human rights weakens the structure of international society, in practise it actually does very little to affect the stat us quo.States continue to be the most powerful actors in international relations and in general the human rights regime has done little to erode their Westphalian rights. States always act in accordance with their own national interests, and power politics are a strong motivating factor in interstate relations. [13] This leads to the widening of the ‘compliance gap’, where states only comply with human rights treaties when there is no reason for non-compliance; however when human rights clash with national security, the interests of the state are always prioritised. 14] States can even use human rights treaties as a shield against international pressure, because once a government ratifies a human rights treaty there is little else foreign actors can do, short of armed intervention. In essence, this allows states to ‘hide domestic human rights practises behind the veil of international law’. [15] Additionally, most of the core human rights treaties like the ICCPR were drafted and ratified during the Cold War. 16] Many states used ratification to gain political legitimacy but didn’t need to actually comply with them, such as the Helsinki Accords which the Soviet Union signed in order to gain political parity with the USA, but never intended to implement. [17]This illustrates the main reason why the pursuit of human rights does not affect the structure of international society – that there are no solid mechanisms for the enforcement of international law and thus no method of combating impunity. 18] Although they can use economic and political pressure, the only real way that states can force an unwilling state into compliance is through humanitarian interventions. Humanitarian interventions have also done little in reality to change the structure of international society as states do not generally engage in them, and when they do they are condemned by the international community. [19] When states intervene for humanitarian causes they still justify the use of force in terms of self-defence, as seen with the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia, and Tanzania in Uganda. 20] Even when humanitarianism is stated as the primary justification, as with the NATO intervention in Kosovo, national interests always influence the states’ actions. NATO believed if it did not act then any future threats of military force would appear redundant, therefore felt compelled to intervene in Kosovo. [21] This shows that the main motivation was not the plight of the Kosovar people, rather the protection of stability in Europe and the maintenance of NATO credibility.The only case where an intervention would have truly been humanitarian was the crisis in Rwanda, where the lack of a threat to national security discouraged an intervention, leading the West to fall back on the Westphalian principles as an excuse not to expend resources. All of this demonstrates that the pursuit of human rights through humanitarian intervent ions has not affected the structure of international society because states use it to propagate their national interests and ignore it when it does not benefit them, thus preserving the status quo.Therefore in conclusion, while solidarists could argue that the pursuit of human rights strengthens the structure of international society by empowering individuals to pursue a life free from violence, in reality the human rights regime has done little to affect the status quo of international relations. States remain the most powerful actors and do not allow human rights to interfere with their national interests, complying with treaties only when non-compliance is not necessary. 22] There has been no erosion of the sovereignty of states because internationally there are no mechanisms for law enforcement, and so states have freedom to act according to their national interests. [23] Even humanitarian interventions do not affect the current state of Westphalian rights because they are rare, and when they are carried out it is always because it is in the interests of the intervening state to do so.Therefore the integrity of states is maintained because their sovereignty and right to non-intervention is preserved, allowing them to remain dominant in international relations and thus demonstrating that the pursuit of human rights does not weaken or strengthen the structure of international society, rather simply propagates the status quo.

The Wright Brothers and the First Flight of an Airplane

In 1899, after Wilbur Wright had written a letter of request to the Smithsonian Institution for information about flight experiments, the Wright Brothers designed their first aircraft. It was a small, biplane glider flown as a kite to test their solution for controlling the craft by wing warping. Wing warping is a method of arching the wingtips slightly to control the aircrafts rolling motion and balance. Lessons From Birdwatching The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver. They believed that they could use this technique to obtain roll control by warping or changing the shape, of a portion of the wing. The Gliders Experiments Over the next three years, Wilbur and his brother Orville would design a series of gliders that would be flown in both unmanned (as kites) and piloted flights. They read about the works of Cayley  and Langley and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal. They corresponded with Octave Chanute concerning some of their ideas. They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial and hardest problem to solve. So following a successful glider test, the Wrights built and tested a full-size glider. They selected Kitty Hawk, North Carolina as their test site because of its wind, sand, hilly terrain and remote location. In the year 1900, the Wright brothers successfully tested their new 50-pound biplane glider with its 17-foot wingspan and wing-warping mechanism at Kitty Hawk in both unmanned and piloted flights. In fact, it was the first piloted glider. Based on the results, the Wright Brothers planned to refine the controls and landing gear, and build a bigger glider. In 1901, at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, the Wright Brothers flew the largest glider ever flown. It had  a 22-foot wingspan, a weight of nearly 100 pounds and skids for landing. However, many problems occurred. The wings did not have enough lifting power, the forward elevator was not effective in controlling the pitch and the wing-warping mechanism occasionally caused the airplane to spin out of control. In their disappointment, they predicted that man will probably not fly in their lifetime. In spite of the problems with their last attempts at flight, the Wright brothers  reviewed their test results and determined that the calculations they had used were not reliable. They decided to build a wind tunnel to test a variety of wing shapes and their effect on lift. Based upon these tests, the inventors had a greater understanding of how an airfoil (wing) works and could calculate with greater accuracy how well a particular wing design would fly. They planned to design a new glider with a 32-foot wingspan and a tail to help stabilize it. The Flyer In 1902, the Wright brothers flew numerous test glides using their new glider. Their studies showed that a movable tail would help balance the craft and so they connected a movable tail to the wing-warping wires to coordinate turns. With successful glides to verify their wind tunnel tests, the inventors planned to build a powered aircraft. After months of studying how propellers work, the Wright Brothers designed a motor and a new aircraft sturdy enough to accommodate the motors weight and vibrations. The craft weighed 700 pounds and came to be known as the Flyer. The  First Manned Flight The Wright brothers built a movable track to help launch the Flyer. This downhill track would help the aircraft gain enough airspeed to fly. After two attempts to fly this machine, one of which resulted in a minor crash, Orville Wright took the Flyer for a 12-second, sustained flight on December 17, 1903. This was the first successful powered and piloted flight in history. In 1904, the first flight lasting more than five minutes took place on November 9th. The Flyer II was flown by Wilbur Wright. In 1908, passenger flight took a turn for the worse when the first fatal air crash occurred on September 17. Orville Wright was piloting the plane. Orville Wright survived the crash, but his passenger, Signal Corps Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge, did not. The Wright Brothers had been allowing passengers to fly with them since May 14, 1908. In 1909, the U.S. Government bought its first airplane, a Wright Brothers biplane, on July 30. The airplane sold for $25,000 plus a bonus of $5,000 because it exceeded 40 mph. Wright Brothers - Vin Fiz First Armed Airplane On July 18, 1914, an Aviation Section of the Signal Corps (part of the Army) was established. Its flying unit contained airplanes made by the Wright Brothers as well as some made by their chief competitor, Glenn Curtiss. Patent Suit Although Glenn Curtisss invention, ailerons (French for little wing), was far different from the Wrights wing-warping mechanism, the Court determined that use of lateral controls by others was unauthorized by patent law.