GA Security
- Thread starter ROSWELL41
- Start date
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
At most airports I've been to lately, "GA Security" is an oxymoron.
Edit: Started to list some examples of bad security at airports I've been to lately, but I suppose in the interest of doing my small part to contribue to security, I shouldn't.
Edit: Started to list some examples of bad security at airports I've been to lately, but I suppose in the interest of doing my small part to contribue to security, I shouldn't.
ROSWELL41
New Member
Would you be able to send me those examples by private message or email them to me at mlorusso@purdue.edu
I'm writing a speech and any good examples would be much appreciated. I would credit you in my speech of course.
I'm writing a speech and any good examples would be much appreciated. I would credit you in my speech of course.
ROSWELL41
New Member
The light aircraft itself cant do a lot of damage, neither can an automobile. But if you put some kind of explosive in it its highly dangerous. I cite this as an example of what a light GA aircraft could do if an evil-doer was at the controls. The difference between the car and the plane is that the car doesnt have access to the secure areas of major airports all over the world. This is a point I'm trying to make in my speech. To clarify, I state that this is the rare worst case scenario. GA pilots are good people who either fly for fun or for a living. I know that I would not want to jeopardize this freedom by skimping on GA security.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
The light aircraft itself cant do a lot of damage, neither can an automobile. But if you put some kind of explosive in it its highly dangerous. I cite this as an example of what a light GA aircraft could do if an evil-doer was at the controls. The difference between the car and the plane is that the car doesnt have access to the secure areas of major airports all over the world. This is a point I'm trying to make in my speech. To clarify, I state that this is the rare worst case scenario. GA pilots are good people who either fly for fun or for a living. I know that I would not want to jeopardize this freedom by skimping on GA security.
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts: One, if you put some kind of explosive on a person it is highly dangerous. Two, you can't get very much explosive on board a light GA aircraft and still take off; no such limitations for cars, trucks, etc. Three, whether it would be easy to notice a stranger at a local airport or not, I think it clearly would be easy to notice the stranger loading an airplane with explosive materials. And, four, nobody screams for security restrictions on Ryder trucks, and it's been made abundantly clear what one of those can be used for. The calls for increased security for GA light aircraft represent little more than knee-jerk reactionism from people you don't have any understanding of GA (or from people who have an axe to grind against GA anyway).
I'm not sure what you mean by "access to the secure areas of major airports all over the world." If you're talking about someone trying to ram an airliner with an explosives-laden airplane, there are much simpler delivery devices (it would, for example, probably be just as easy (perhaps easier) to ram a truck/van through the airport fence at most airports). If you're talking about getting close enough to airline traffic to transfer explosives onto the airliners, I'm not aware of any major airport at which a GA light airplane could get that close to a parked airliner (and someone would probably notice).
[Now stepping off my soap box, and slowly backing away.]
MF
The light aircraft itself cant do a lot of damage, neither can an automobile. But if you put some kind of explosive in it its highly dangerous. I cite this as an example of what a light GA aircraft could do if an evil-doer was at the controls. The difference between the car and the plane is that the car doesnt have access to the secure areas of major airports all over the world. This is a point I'm trying to make in my speech. To clarify, I state that this is the rare worst case scenario. GA pilots are good people who either fly for fun or for a living. I know that I would not want to jeopardize this freedom by skimping on GA security.
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts: One, if you put some kind of explosive on a person it is highly dangerous. Two, you can't get very much explosive on board a light GA aircraft and still take off; no such limitations for cars, trucks, etc. Three, whether it would be easy to notice a stranger at a local airport or not, I think it clearly would be easy to notice the stranger loading an airplane with explosive materials. And, four, nobody screams for security restrictions on Ryder trucks, and it's been made abundantly clear what one of those can be used for. The calls for increased security for GA light aircraft represent little more than knee-jerk reactionism from people you don't have any understanding of GA (or from people who have an axe to grind against GA anyway).
I'm not sure what you mean by "access to the secure areas of major airports all over the world." If you're talking about someone trying to ram an airliner with an explosives-laden airplane, there are much simpler delivery devices (it would, for example, probably be just as easy (perhaps easier) to ram a truck/van through the airport fence at most airports). If you're talking about getting close enough to airline traffic to transfer explosives onto the airliners, I'm not aware of any major airport at which a GA light airplane could get that close to a parked airliner (and someone would probably notice).
[Now stepping off my soap box, and slowly backing away.]
MF
tonyw
Well-Known Member
There's just flat out no need for any real GA security anymore than there is a need for security for a car rental lot. Sheesh, man. You can go to your local car rental place, pick up an SUV, and all you need is a credit card and drivers license. Pack that full of easily obtainable fertilizer and diesel fuel, and you'll do a hell of a lot more damage than you will with a C172.
GA had nothing to do with September 11, but the Department of Homeland (In)Security seems to be fixated on it.
GA had nothing to do with September 11, but the Department of Homeland (In)Security seems to be fixated on it.
FL270
New Member
What my friends John and Tony and MF have said is 100% accurate. ROSWELL41, as a pilot I would hope you'd know better. You do an extreme disservice to GA if you give a speech that paints general aviation as a security threat when it is no such thing. It is just those sort of ill-conceived notions that give the Department of Homeland (In)Security cause to place more restrictions on GA flying. I for one will be calling 911 and Airport Watch if I see some wacko loading dynamite or fertilizer in a Cessna, and I daresay everyone on here would do the same thing.
General aviation is not a threat to national security, plain and simple. To imply anything but simply fuels the perception of the non-pilots that GA is unsafe and dangerous, and gives vote-seeking politicians the impetus to act on rampant, unfounded constituent paranoia and slap onerous, entirely unnecessary restrictions on general aviation flying.
And this is why I'll renew my AOPA membership every year, even if it is the last $39 I have ...
General aviation is not a threat to national security, plain and simple. To imply anything but simply fuels the perception of the non-pilots that GA is unsafe and dangerous, and gives vote-seeking politicians the impetus to act on rampant, unfounded constituent paranoia and slap onerous, entirely unnecessary restrictions on general aviation flying.
And this is why I'll renew my AOPA membership every year, even if it is the last $39 I have ...
ROSWELL41
New Member
I love the freedom of flying just as much as any other GA pilot. I feel that if an attack were to happen with a GA aircraft, however, we would see serious restrictions. Why not pre-empt this by taking some common sense security measures. I do not mean place metal detectors at every airport in the US or banning GA from major airports. I do think however that pilots need to get more serious about the issue. Saying GA is no threat and that nothing can ever happen is the irresponsible attitude that terrorists would like to perpetuate. Remember, the public has no clue what GA is about and quite honestly could care less if it were gone. We need to take steps to prevent this from happening.
sigmanu499
New Member
just to play devils advocate, what about crop dusting aircraft and the global express parked on a GA ramp. Crop dusters full of anthrax or something wouldnt be good and I Global Express or a BBJ could do some damage. Hell at our airport we have lots of crop dusting aircraft and a global express the comes in almost every weekend and no real security. But I do agree that in general GA is not a security problem.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
There is little or no need for GA security.
At GA airports you pretty much know everyone around you, hence any stranger would stick out like a sore thumb.
And the fellow in Tampa proved you can't do a whole lot of damage with a light aircraft anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed 100%
Waiting for world to end ...
There is little or no need for GA security.
At GA airports you pretty much know everyone around you, hence any stranger would stick out like a sore thumb.
And the fellow in Tampa proved you can't do a whole lot of damage with a light aircraft anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed 100%
Waiting for world to end ...
[ QUOTE ]
...Saying GA is no threat and that nothing can ever happen is the irresponsible attitude that terrorists would like to perpetuate. ...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the terrorists want us jumping at our shadows and restricting our freedoms at the hint of any potential terror weapon.
The fact is that GA aircraft are a very poor choice as a weapon or weapon delivery system (yes, even a 'duster). And if we start guarding against every potential way that an attack can be carried out we'd all better go hide in a cave.
Want an example? An attack against a crowded outdoor stadium has to be high on the list of awfulness. While a suicide attack with a small plane would be spectacular (from a tv journalist standpoint), the total destruction and loss of life would probably be higher by a factor of 100, or even 1,000 if they use a semi-truck full of explosives crashing one chain link fence and pulling up against the outside wall. What should the government and the trucking industry be doing to prevent such an awful event? Did you know that practically anyone can get their hands on a semi with very little effort?
Please don't perpetuate the public's perception that small planes are a threat.
...Saying GA is no threat and that nothing can ever happen is the irresponsible attitude that terrorists would like to perpetuate. ...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the terrorists want us jumping at our shadows and restricting our freedoms at the hint of any potential terror weapon.
The fact is that GA aircraft are a very poor choice as a weapon or weapon delivery system (yes, even a 'duster). And if we start guarding against every potential way that an attack can be carried out we'd all better go hide in a cave.
Want an example? An attack against a crowded outdoor stadium has to be high on the list of awfulness. While a suicide attack with a small plane would be spectacular (from a tv journalist standpoint), the total destruction and loss of life would probably be higher by a factor of 100, or even 1,000 if they use a semi-truck full of explosives crashing one chain link fence and pulling up against the outside wall. What should the government and the trucking industry be doing to prevent such an awful event? Did you know that practically anyone can get their hands on a semi with very little effort?
Please don't perpetuate the public's perception that small planes are a threat.
ROSWELL41
New Member
Then why do FDC Notams restrict flight over large outdoor sporting events for small and large aircraft is small aircraft are no threat? I am currently writing a speech on GA security. I guess the question I should ask is: Why is General Aviation security unnecessary? Why is the government and the public overreacting? I am still personally on the fence over this issue. Any substantive answers would be appreciated.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
Then why do FDC Notams restrict flight over large outdoor sporting events for small and large aircraft is small aircraft are no threat?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it is a knee-jerk reaction by a group of uneducated, morons. Do you REALLY think bad guys are going to call up the FSS and ask where teh TFRs and then ABIDE by them. You will never hear a bad guy say, "Oh I guess we can't kamakzi XXXX today because there isa TFR. FOILED again! Grrr." No. So who do the TFRs penalize? The people who follow the law/rules in the first place.
A van (which is both far more easily obtained and operated than ANY GA aircraft) can be packed full of far more dangers things than a GA aircraft and be driven into said gathering with barely a look. Yet we haven't shut-down the highway system. Why? Because more people use the highway system and any incoviencence would NOT be tolerated. However, when it comes to GA we're inconvinceing the "rich" and "few" so who cares.
Then why do FDC Notams restrict flight over large outdoor sporting events for small and large aircraft is small aircraft are no threat?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it is a knee-jerk reaction by a group of uneducated, morons. Do you REALLY think bad guys are going to call up the FSS and ask where teh TFRs and then ABIDE by them. You will never hear a bad guy say, "Oh I guess we can't kamakzi XXXX today because there isa TFR. FOILED again! Grrr." No. So who do the TFRs penalize? The people who follow the law/rules in the first place.
A van (which is both far more easily obtained and operated than ANY GA aircraft) can be packed full of far more dangers things than a GA aircraft and be driven into said gathering with barely a look. Yet we haven't shut-down the highway system. Why? Because more people use the highway system and any incoviencence would NOT be tolerated. However, when it comes to GA we're inconvinceing the "rich" and "few" so who cares.
SUSPilot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Then why do FDC Notams restrict flight over large outdoor sporting events for small and large aircraft is small aircraft are no threat? I am currently writing a speech on GA security. I guess the question I should ask is: Why is General Aviation security unnecessary? Why is the government and the public overreacting? I am still personally on the fence over this issue. Any substantive answers would be appreciated.
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember like was said this was a kneejerk reaction, and there are a lot of people that own stadiums and Disney World who make a lot of money off of advertisement in their stadium or park who before 9/11 had no real reason to pressure the restriction of overflights mainly in the form of aerial advertising of which these stadium owners recieved no revenue from.
Then why do FDC Notams restrict flight over large outdoor sporting events for small and large aircraft is small aircraft are no threat? I am currently writing a speech on GA security. I guess the question I should ask is: Why is General Aviation security unnecessary? Why is the government and the public overreacting? I am still personally on the fence over this issue. Any substantive answers would be appreciated.
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember like was said this was a kneejerk reaction, and there are a lot of people that own stadiums and Disney World who make a lot of money off of advertisement in their stadium or park who before 9/11 had no real reason to pressure the restriction of overflights mainly in the form of aerial advertising of which these stadium owners recieved no revenue from.
ROSWELL41
New Member
Mr. Tenney,
I would agree with you that GA pilots are the best security force GA has. What could one say to convince the general public that GA is not a threat? Saying, "oh since they're small planes they cant do much damage" just isnt enough. What about the threat posed by business jets? Is a loaded down G-V or Global Express just as harmless as a Piper Warrior? Is there any additional security in place for those aircraft? Here in LAF, large business jets are parked on the ramp next to all the Warriors and Cessna's. Often times they are left with doors open. I'm more or less trying to get all of you guys who say GA poses no threat to tell me why. I dont want to be forced to walk through a metal detector going out to the flightline. I want to be able to form a good argument in defense of these threats on our freedom to fly.
I would agree with you that GA pilots are the best security force GA has. What could one say to convince the general public that GA is not a threat? Saying, "oh since they're small planes they cant do much damage" just isnt enough. What about the threat posed by business jets? Is a loaded down G-V or Global Express just as harmless as a Piper Warrior? Is there any additional security in place for those aircraft? Here in LAF, large business jets are parked on the ramp next to all the Warriors and Cessna's. Often times they are left with doors open. I'm more or less trying to get all of you guys who say GA poses no threat to tell me why. I dont want to be forced to walk through a metal detector going out to the flightline. I want to be able to form a good argument in defense of these threats on our freedom to fly.