GA Security

Because we are in America, and Americans should be free to do what they want?

And because all the regs and rules that they impose on GA won't do a single thing to prevent another September 11.

September 11 was done with 757s and 767s, not a C172, not a Citation, not a Lear, not a Piper Cub.

The reaction of the Department of Homeland (In)Security is like making everyone who WASN'T driving drunk last Saturday night have to go through all sorts of hoops in order to drive. It's ridiculous and it only serves to punish those who abide by the rules.
 
Just called the AOPA. They pointed me toward their website and to the Department of Homeland Security / TSA website. Anyone know any articles on general aviation being stated as a security risk? (I read that CBS article linked by the AOPA website) Also, why should the general public care if GA is restricted? Probing deeper here to try and sharpen my argument. I appreciate everyone's response. If you want to be quoted in my speech, PM me with your quote and name.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also, why should the general public care if GA is restricted? Probing deeper here to try and sharpen my argument. I appreciate everyone's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

People should care because the moment we start to take fundamental freedoms away from one group of people, it makes it that much easier to take freedoms away from the next group of people. And once a people have given up their freedoms, it becomes nearly impossible to get them back (witness the "Temporary" Flight Restrictions that have been up for over two years, with no end in sight).

People should care because it will never end with GA. If today, based on totally unfounded paranoia, they restrict GA. What will they restrict tomorrow? And make no mistake, there will be a tomorrow because the unfounded paranoia animating the attempts to restrict GA won't simply go away once they restrict GA. People will still be afraid, and the politicians will still look for ways to appease the fearmongers. Maybe tomorrow it will be pleasure boating. After all, there are a lot of major airports that sit on the water, and wouldn't it be really easy to pull a boat full of nasty things up to departure path. Plus, boaters are just idle rich folks anyway. Then perhaps hunters, after all someone might decide to use that hunting rifle to take out a passenger plane. Then maybe model rocketeers, after all someone might try to fire one at a plane or, worse, try to build a bomb out of the rocket motors (this last part is already happening!!!). Then, of course, there are the immigrants and other folks who don't look, act or sound quite like us.

People should care because our freedoms are too hard won and too easily lost. We simply CAN'T take them for granted.

If there were a credible, legitimate threat posed by GA aircraft, I would be the first to support restrictions aimed at preventing disaster. But there is no credible, legitimate threat specific to GA. Sure, there's a potential threat from GA, but there's a potential threat from everything.

Moreover, what type of security could prevent a determined terrorist from stealing a plane and doing with it what he will? Locks can be picked; chains can be broken; security guards can be shot. As someone noted earlier, the TFRs themselves are a bad joke. While I have little doubt that the D.C. ADIZ is well defended, the TFRs around sporting events, power stations, etc. are not. There is no way that the government would have time to intercept or stop an ill-motivated aircraft flying into one of those TFRs. The ONLY things those do are (1) make life a menace for law abiding people, and (2) satisfy the fearmongers.

The ONLY effective way to stop terror attacks is to find the terrorists where they sleep and kill them, and the thing that really gets me mad is that every dollar and every minute spent on these ridiculous, ineffective homeland (in)security measures is a dollar and minute taken away from the hunt for the terrorists. And that, to me, is the most frightening thing of all.

[Getting off my soap box, and slowing stomping away.]

MF

EDIT: BTW, ROSWELL, I don't mean this to be an attack on you, even if it sounds that way, it's just that the willingness of the American people to toss their freedoms away makes me so freakin' mad I can't see straight.



First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
 
Speaking about corporate aircraft specifically, I can readily assure you that security measures both visible and invisible are being taken with each and every corporate aircraft out there. If the door of my airplane is open, it is because I am on board or somewhere with a direct line-of-sight to that airplane. Not in the men's room or the snooze room, but looking out the window at the airplane. If anybody goes near it, I'll challenge them. Whenever I'm not in visual contact with my airplane, it is locked in such a way as to require more than one key. (These are not cheap factory locks, either, but expensive, security-tested, non-pickable STC-ed after-market locks.) Even if a person could steal my keys and unlock the airplane there are other, well concealed measures that we have taken to ensure that no one could fly it away. And NO, I won't say on a public forum what those measures might be. Suffice it to say that I don't lose any sleep worrying about someone stealing the King Air off the ramp while I'm on an overnight. My company, and every corporate operator I'm familiar with, takes the security of a multi-million dollar corporate asset VERY seriously.

And trust me, even if someone leaves their Global unlocked on your ramp (and if it is open I'm betting someone's on board or they have other less visible security measures in place on a $30 million jet), someone WILL take notice and stop you if they see you loading bags of fertilizer or dynamite or a gang of turban-clad True Believers on board ready to send themselves off to True Believerland with as many innocents as they can take.

Security does not always require a nine-foot fence, man-eating dogs, and hundreds of gun-toting federal agents with metal detectors and a "go ahead, make my day" attitude. Trust me, there's more there than meets the eye.

Put that in your speech.

</screaming soapbox rampage>
 
I appreciate all the responses I have gotten. I'm grateful that you guys elaborated on why you say GA is not a threat. Do you think DCA should be reopened to GA traffic? Is that a safe proposition? If everything is as safe as it seems I dont see why they dont reopen it. I suppose it has something to do with the beauracracy in Washington.
 
Yes, DCA should be reopened. GA traffic used the airport safely for years prior to 9/11 and there's no reason they can't do so now. It is bureaucratic nonsense that GA has not been allowed to return there yet. I'm actually a little surprised, because it would save all the politicians who get rides on corporate jets from having to ride out to IAD! Piedmont Hawthorne IAD isn't shedding too many tears in their beers about it, though ... they have been doing an INSANE amount of business the last 2.5 years.

DCA just cries out for a Pilot Nav or (better yet) an RNAV SID off runway 1. As long as you make a turn up the Potomac or the Anacostia after departure you're in good shape. You just don't have a lot of time to mess around before you do, or you're in P-56 and a whole heap of trouble.

As to the reasons why GA is not a security threat at DCA, they're covered at some length in the preceding posts ... same reason it isn't a threat at Podunk, USA. Remember also that slots are required at DCA ... instantly makes it a simple matter to know who's coming and going and when, and to set up whatever prescreening is deemed reasonably necessary by the government and the alphabets.
 
You're [bleeping] right DCA should be opened to GA traffic. It's ridiculous that it's closed. The ADIZ is ridiculous. The FRZ is ridiculous.

Keeping GA out of DCA is like making everyone except the guy who got busted shoplifting leave all their bags behind when the enter the store.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You're [bleeping] right DCA should be opened to GA traffic. It's ridiculous that it's closed. The ADIZ is ridiculous. The FRZ is ridiculous.

Keeping GA out of DCA is like making everyone except the guy who got busted shoplifting leave all their bags behind when the enter the store.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly, I don't do a good job of keeping up with the alphabet soup, but what is "the FRZ."

MF
 
The FRZ is the Flight Restricted Zone, the 16NM bubble around DCA that THOU SHALT NOT PENETRATE. It is why those pilots based at the "DC3" have to go through Holy Hell to get to and from their airport and why the businesses there are severely hurting. And Tony is right, it is an enormous crock of crap.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The FRZ is the Flight Restricted Zone, the 16NM bubble around DCA that THOU SHALT NOT PENETRATE. It is why those pilots based at the "DC3" have to go through Holy Hell to get to and from their airport and why the businesses there are severely hurting. And Tony is right, it is an enormous crock of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. It's ridiculous. Nobody can fly to the DC3 except for cleared, based pilots. Well, that means no transients. That means you can kiss a lot of business bye bye.

And then on top of that, if you want to fly out of the DC3, you need to go and get fingerprinted, have your background checked by the alphabet soup of agencies, interview with the FSDO, and then and only then will you get to take your C172 out from VKX, W32, or CGS.

On top of that, when you do decide to do that, you need to call the FSS and file an FRZ flight plan using your special password, contact the TRACON by phone only, get a squawk, and then you can go and fly. And you need to repeat that process to get back in. Oh, and if things change, you can't modify the plan in the air. You have to land outside the FRZ and call the FSS.

All to save us from those C172s and Pipers that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.

That's the main thing I would use in my argument against GA restrictions, my friend. GA had NOTHING to do with September 11, yet it's being penalized for it.
 
I maintain that GA is the safest operators out there in relation to the terror threat. I called DOT's office in the days following 9-11 to complain that part 91 GA ops were being unfairly discrimenated against, ( and still are in relationship to DCA )The reason I say this is because unlike Part 121 and 135 operators and even Fractionals to a degree, the Part 91 Corporate Flight ops know everyone on board, and when we fly a customer we always have a corporate employee who knows the customer on board. As stated elswhere on this thread the level of familarity is high around small airports and those who don't belong are challenged.
The bottom line is how many freedoms and liberties are you willing to give up or ask me to give up to gain "security" against an enemy who has no regards for the very law that is suppose to stop them. What Law could have been written to prevent 9-11 = NONE.

Jim
 
as an old employee of DCA pre and post 9-11 i think that all corperate pax should be screened...it doesnt matter if an employee knows them or not..its still a flight risk, The employee knows the PAX as a customer and thats about it.. they dont know religous beliefs and if they can take a bribe or not....all airports with Signature's and Millionair's are not secured..think about it this way.. employee's of FBO's dont have to go through security when they go to work, the risk of people "planting" somthing on a plane or doing somthing horrible is a realistic risk... Everyone that touches a plane or is on a plane needs to be searched...that will never happen but thats the way it should be IMO
 
[ 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 ]


What about if that guy crashed into a bus filled with elementery school kids? or a park?
 
I am not saying that terrorists do go through this posts to get ideas. But it isn't very smart to sit here and make scenarios in which they could do the wrong things. Haven't you guys seen in the news how they are always seeing possible things that may happen? This may just strike as an idea to the terrorist in which maybe never thought of this idea before.

Anyways, I don't think this is much of an issue. But should anyone be allowed to go on the ramp and take pictures of airplanes? I do that and it is awesome, but is it also safe?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What about if that guy crashed into a bus filled with elementery school kids? or a park?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pop Quiz: Which do you think would do more damage to a school bus? (a) a Cessna, (b) a tractor-trailer rig, or (c) a guy with a few lbs. of explosives on his chest.

For that matter, which is more easy to hit a school bus with? It's hard enough some days to hit a 50X3000 ft. runway. A school bus is only about 10X30-40 and it MOVES!!

GA simply IS NOT the most pressing threat this country is facing. IT JUST ISN'T!!!

MF
 
MF, like you, I am AMAZED at the ignorance being displayed here, and the obtuse disregard for what we posted.

Ok you might have someone go psycho and crash in to a bus, but how is searching them going to help? Going to confiscate the nail clippers just in case he holds them out the window while crashing?

Don't be ridiculous. You can't stop psychos. You CAN stop strange looking people and general strangers hanging around airplanes by challenging them. There is NO NEED and NO USE for TSA on GA ramps.
 
[ QUOTE ]
as an old employee of DCA pre and post 9-11 i think that all corperate pax should be screened...it doesnt matter if an employee knows them or not..its still a flight risk, The employee knows the PAX as a customer and thats about it.. they dont know religous beliefs and if they can take a bribe or not....all airports with Signature's and Millionair's are not secured..think about it this way.. employee's of FBO's dont have to go through security when they go to work, the risk of people "planting" somthing on a plane or doing somthing horrible is a realistic risk... Everyone that touches a plane or is on a plane needs to be searched...that will never happen but thats the way it should be IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think you should have to go through security to drive your car? My family owns an airplane. I know everyone who rides in it with me. Do you think it is right that I have to pay for security screening at signature so my friends and family can ride in a private airplane, when there is no required security for me to drive my private car with the same people in it.
 
I agree theres no need for TSA on the ramps and at FBO's. That would be a nightmare.

Word around the water cooler at the FBO is that there is still pressure from above to increase security. Apparently cost is a big limiting factor.

The fact of the matter is the security that they DO have, is a joke and an illusion. Even at large FBO's, they'll pretty much buzz anyone out the door who looks at them like they want to get out. Who exactly are they trying to stop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top