Incident in Tampa? Opinions on kid pilot

[surfnole]

One thing this incident showed is how stupid the FAA's ban was on General Aviation. Here a kids rams into a building and damages hardly a thing. This should be proof that a 2400 pound airlplane is not a threat.

Sure someone could load a plane full of explosives and fly into a building, but the FAA can't prevent that. It would be far easier and more effective to buy a used van, load it with explosives and drive it into the local shopping mall. There is some risk that you just need to live with.

 

[aero99]

quote:

"One thing this incident showed is how stupid the FAA's ban was on General Aviation. Here a kids rams into a building and damages hardly a thing. This should be proof that a 2400 pound airlplane is not a threat. "

I would completely disagree. It is a threat and this proved it. The pics I saw destoyed two offices. I think we are luckly that this happened over the weekend when the office were not open and there were not many people on the street. This proves that this sort of thing is a threat. That same plane could have gone to a sporting event or something simular and cause much heavy damage or loss of life. I also don't think the GA ban was stupid. I am actually surprised the FAA didn't shut down GA again.

Let another GA accedent happen and have heavy loss of life and GA will be closed again.

I don't mean to sound negitive against GA, its the only aviation I fly in and I hope acts like this don't prevent GA activities from happening. Just another way Bin Laden's acts play with our freedom we were so used to .

 

[browntail]

How about keeping responses to a couple of paragraphs and not an entire book there avbug!

 

[c.j.]

I used to hang around the airport when i was younger. I was able to get my self on many types of airplanes, including George Zimmers G4. But i think that instructors must be at the plane if the student has less that 20 hrs or has Soloed. This kid had like 6 over 10 months. Well that was two cents.

 

[avbug]

Browntail,

I tend to say what's on my mind. When I'm done thinking about the topic, I'm done writing about it. If you don't like the content or length, scroll down and skip it. Most folks do. I'm not articulate, I'm not educated, and I'm not out for attention, or any other purpose than I feel something should be said. I simply say what comes to mind and leave it there.

Someone indicated that this event proves that a light airplane isn't a threat. Apparently this person believes that a body count is the only measure of a threat. Sit a box of TNT quarter sticks in the back seat of that 172 and two sacks of fertalizer with deisel fuel added next to it. Fill the tanks, and then repeat. See what happens. Just because not much damage was done by a fifteen year old kid who wasn't even trying, doesn't mean that it can't be done.

A friend who was grounded during the 9-11 events, joked about the foolishness of preventing him from flying his private helicopter to and from the international airport and home. The enhanced cb airspace prevented him from getting to work. He joked that if he tried to fly his helicopter into the capitol building, it would just bounce off. He was kidding, but he's probably right. However, done properly, this event could have been much more serious.

I don't believe it's prudent to expand on how he could have done this (for those without imaginations, I see little use in providing ideas). However, it's far from difficult, and I believe most of us understand that.

Had the kid used better technique, he could have done considerable damage, even without enhancements such as fuels, explosives, etc. The point is this; measures must be taken; this isn't new, it's been necessary for a long time, and has been ignored. Yes, trucks and boats and other equipment may be used as a weapon, however, nothing matches the flexibility of a light airplane.

I'm a long time supporter of general aviation. I have always, and presently, participate at many levels in general aviation. I believe in it, it's important to me. It's for this very reason that I firmly believe that unless firmer measures are implemented for security, we will see a very rapid erosion of our potential in general aviation. Protect it, or begin to lose it. Nobody was happy with the measures before; the best way to prevent that from occuring again is to adapt measures to ensure that it DOESN'T happen again. Far better safe than sorry.

The measures I provided before are cursory and represent a small part of many measures. However, better security and better control IS possible. Taking away keys, no. Ways do exist to eliminate many of the opportunities for such things to happen again, and until they're implemented and enforced, we run a very high risk of seeing repeat incidents...only serious ones. If that happens, we stand to see our privileges disappear in short order, quite possibly to never return, or be forever damaged and altered. I certainly hope that doesn't occur.

 

[TurboS7]

I still like the way you think, but I am afraid we are in the minority.

 

[Wiggums]

Someone indicated that this event proves that a light airplane isn't a threat. Apparently this person believes that a body count is the only measure of a threat. Sit a box of TNT quarter sticks in the back seat of that 172 and two sacks of fertalizer with deisel fuel added next to it. Fill the tanks, and then repeat. See what happens. Just because not much damage was done by a fifteen year old kid who wasn't even trying, doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I don't think it's quite as easy as that. First you've got the combine to fuel and fertzlizer, and then load it aboard the plane without getting caught. Then you've got to get the TNT, and get that on the aircraft. Then, how are going to fuse it so it explodes when the aircraft hits the building? Most likely, your bomb will just rain out onto the street and make a mess.

Light planes aren't a true threat. How much explosive can a 172 carry? 1000lbs if overgross? Then you have to aquire enough piloting skills to flying the airplane to your target. And finally, you have to be willing to kill yourself. How many people fit that profile?

There are much easier ways of blowing up things with a 1000lb bomb. If someone really, really, really wants to do this to a target they will find away. Even if we completely close light planes as delievery method for the weapon it's not to hard to devise another plan.

 

[avbug]

Well, now, that depends on the explosive, doesn't it? Most private pilots need a handtruck to move their personal flight bag, jammed with every innovation that Jeppesen and Sporty's has come up with in the last 40 years. So seeing Horace Bud Melmac working his way to the airplane with a package or two isn't a big deal. If that package happens to contain homemade devices, no one is the wiser.

You haven't thought about it much, or had any experience in the area, or you'd understand just how much impact it can make. Pick a better target, especially a softer one. As I said before, I will not elaborate on details; they're easy enough, and there is little point in sharing that information publically. However, rest assured that adequate damage CAN be done with a small amount of easily concealable explosives. Quantity does not equal quality.

The airplane would never need to be flown over gross, and that matter is pointless anyway; does a suicidal bomber care if he or she is outside the manufacturers limitations? Not.

Further, the ability of a light airplane to be concealed most anywhere allows ample opportunity to prep the airplane for such a mission. As the airplane can depart roads, fields, pastures, and then rapidly move to a target with little liklihood of detection, and be assured direct access to virtually any target (something a car or boat cannot do) at the most vital point on the target.

All of this is also aside from the true issue. The amount of damage is inconsequential. Buildings, glass, lives. Unfortunate, tragic, but not the goal of the person performing such a mission, nor the true value of the mission. If you'll recall, one of the most successful missions of the second world war was launched against the Japanese mainland by Doolittle's raiders in B-25's. With no hope of return they launched and did very little damage. However, the psychological effect was two fold. It weighed heavily on the minds of the Japanese people, and it provided a great morale booster for soldiers and citizens of the US. The value was psychological, not colateral.

If you think four airplanes coordinated in an attack made headlines and shut down the country, what do you suppose twenty airplanes coordinated in 20 different states would do? With no security proceedures, no screening, no precautions, and unlimited possibilities, terrorists have an ideal weapon. Considering that one out of every three intercity passengers travels on general aviation, then shutting down the GA system would be quite a coup. It wouldn't take much to do it; to lose the privileges that we all hold so valueable. Only one or two aircraft performing such an act would cause it to happen. It's already happened once, and people are out of business as a result; a lot more won't survive the next grounding or airspace closure. We're a lot closer to the gutter than you may think.

I suspect that had the pilot of this light airplane been a 25 year old man of arab descent, regardless of his true heritage, we'd see general aviation grounded right now. No questions, no arguements. No choice. This event is far more significat than a one-off act of a deranged kid on acne medicine.

Unless we take measures to protect our flying privileges by ensuring that this doesn't happen again, it will happen again, and we'll lose in ways we can not yet imagine. I don't wish to see that happen. Take these threats seriously; they're out there right now, and this last event isn't isolated. It's an opportunity to recognize the threat and treat it before it gets worse. How will we respond?

 

[Bluto]

Avbug, I respect your reasoning and I agree with you on a number of points. However, I still feel that you are focusing too much on the symptoms and not on the disease. I feel that this is a war that is being (and should be) fought by the military and inteligence agencies of this country. They are the only ones capable of doing so. We as GA professionals will do what we can, however, as you have just pointed out, that is quite limited. If someone truly desires to do what you have outlined above, they can train anywhere in the world and carry out such an attack. Again, I suggest that transponder codes and TFR's will do nothing to protect the 'soft' targets from a motivated individual. How do we enforce them? An FAA violation won't disuade these people. How do you propose we protect ourselves from your "worst case scenario"? Placing Anti-aircraft artillery or SAM's on the roof of every perceived target? Or scrambling fighters for every deviation? What will that cost? What will be the psychological effect of us mistakenly shooting down our first straying solo student? Aside from the very limited opportunity to shoot down these aircraft, the rules you propose seem to allow us only the ability to witness these events. When someone figures out the limits of those rules, and mounts another attack, what then? Tighter regulation? To what end? The public outcry and politicians will decide. How will we respond then?

 

[avbug]

If you don't think anything is effective, then we have only one choice, and it must be done now. Ground everyone. Period.

Still don't think there is anything else that is effective? There has to be.

When the ban was in place, control was a simple matter. Anything not authorized would be shot down. Period.

I don't want to see that happen again, but we'll see it again right quick if something isn't done. Think about it.

It's not a matter of TFR's and transponders alone. However, if airplanes are cleared into the air on an individual basis, and one deviates, then it's downed. Extreme, but look at the alternative. Who would have thought about four airliners striking the WTC? (I did, and I stated for a long time that I thought it would happen, and it did. I'm stating publically now that I think we're going to see a threat from GA airplanes sooner or later; the threat is there now, what we do about it will determine the outcome. We will see it, if nothing is done). Today if we're flying IFR and deviate, we face the real possibility of being downed.

In the very least, VFR traffic will need to come up to speed with the same controls and restrictions that are placed on IFR traffic. Nobody's freedoms will be eroded, but right now it's just too darn permissive.

Again, a few posts above I read comments belittling the damage that a learjet or a light airplane could do. I beg to differ on that point, but it's not really relevant. The colateral damage isn't important. How many people get killed or how much property damage is done isn't what is important. What is important is the potential for one or two acts to shut down and cripple the industry.

The United States leads the world in flight training; it's more available, there are more places to fly without restriction, and it's far cheaper than anywhere else. The world comes here to learn to fly. General Aviation accounts for a great deal of the commerce done in the United States. One out of every three intercity passengers travels on GA. This is not a minor deal.

Shut down GA by introducing one or two more incidents such as this, and it IS coming, and we'll see serious damage done to the industry. Restrictions in flight training, 135 charter, freight, crop dusting, firefighting, and air ambulance. I depended on traffic watch for a time, getting to work. Having that removed was problematic for many. Locally the night of the attacks, I knew some folks who were called to get a heart for a gentleman who was critical, and waiting. Matches aren't easy, and one came up. The flight was not cleared to go get the heart. It's a time critical issue, four hours from cut to stuff, and the evening news had the victim and the victim's family tearfully telling their story. Want to see that again? I don't.

The little big of damage done by crashing an airplane is not significant. However, the ramifications are. That's what terrorism is all about; it's guerilla warfare; it's about taking down a giant with nibbles and nicks, rather than one fell swoop. A handfull of boys, less than a classroom of high school kids in number, took down the country a few months ago; the amount of damage was great, but the effects were far more reaching. Companies went out of business. Training stopped. Travel stopped. Commerce stopped. Don't think for a second that it can't happen again, unless measures are implemented to prevent it. They can be implemented.

Segmenting airspace and allowing an airplane into that airspace by clearance is a start. Increasing combat air patrols and stationing aircraft at more forward operating locations around the country (the country being the front) is a start. If an aircraft is required to file a flight plan for every action, and to activate that plan, and to adhere to that plan, then any deviations should be dealt with switftly. Even minor excursions outside that clearance should be dealt with directly. I'm not calling for wholesale shooting down of light airplanes, but there are ways to interdict and prevent. It's done quietly around our borders every day, and it can be done throught the nation.

Assuming that we aren't a society of people all wanting to bust airspace, we can safely assume that those performing violations or willful acts in the system are slim, and these tend to stand out. Certainly during the airspace shutdown, ANY takeoff illicitly grabbed immediate attention and was dealt with swiftly. I followed reports for several days of light aircraft being forced down all over the country. It worked. The system worked because of tight control. Only those authorized to fly were allowed; everyone else was the agressor, and was dealt with on a case by case basis. It worked, no question about it.

Without resorting to a complete shutdown, tighter control will mean far easier observation of aircraft operating with illicit purposes.

The restrictions in SLC are a good example, for the olympics. I don't agree with the scope of the restrictions, but suffice it to say that a sparrow doesn't fly for a 45 mile radius of the games. Anything outside of that area will be closely monitored. Anything that attempts to fly in that airspace willl see serious reprocussions. Airports will be monitored. Airspace will be monitored. Security is being taken seriously.

If control cannot be had in general aviation, we're going to lose it. One can debate all day the tightness with which one should hold onto the system, and cry freedom around the clock. So long as we risk a repeat of tampa or NY, and so long as we risk losing our system, then we have no freedom. One might as well argue that a kite has no freedom because of the string, when indeed we understand the kite stays aloft in large part because of the resistence offered by the string. Cut the string, the kite falls. We do not yet have a strong enough, or tight enough string. We have ample evidence of this.

I dont' advocate shutting down the airspace, but if we don't apply more stringent controls, it's going to come to that again. I sincerely hope we don't wait until then to wake up.

This is NOT a government issue in entirety. We can all help. Airplane owners can start with prop locks, disconnecting batteries, and other simple measures. Airport managers can increase security, visibility. As much as I detest it, prepare to see tougher enforcement standards for violations of the FAR. Instructors bear a greater responsibility than ever to be mindful of their students needs, and their student's potential.

This is not over yet. Don't compare it to anthrax. This isn't a craze. This is an issue. We're not in the anthrax industry, but we are pilots. This affects us personally; it's our livlihood; it's our responsibility. It's our very lives. How important is that??

 

[surfnole]

**Someone indicated that this event proves that a light airplane isn't a threat. Apparently this person believes that a body count is the only measure of a threat. Sit a box of TNT quarter sticks in the back seat of that 172 and two sacks of fertalizer with deisel fuel added next to it. Fill the tanks, and then repeat. See what happens. Just because not much damage was done by a fifteen year old kid who wasn't even trying, doesn't mean that it can't be done. ................
The point is this; measures must be taken; this isn't new, it's been necessary for a long time, and has been ignored. Yes, trucks and boats and other equipment may be used as a weapon, however, nothing matches the flexibility of a light airplane. **

With the exception of a very few targets, a car provides just as much flexibility and access. Plus you get the benefits of a far larger payload and the opportunity for the bomber to survive the event. Sure an airplane is a threat, but EVERYTHING in life is a threat. Unfortunately, as you say, the knee jerk public won't see it that way. This is nothing more than a depressed kid committing suicide and going out in a blaze of glory.

No additional security measures were necessary in this instance. The FAA was aware of the kid, the Coast Guard was tracking him....I don't know if the Coast guard carries guns on a helicoptor, but a pistol could have taken the kid down.

Lets be totallly safe. Stop the mail to eliminate the anthrax threat, ban automobiles, and everyone grow their own food.

 

[avbug]

Certainly additional security was in order. Had the kid's instructor been with him on a flight that could only have been dual instruction due to age, the kid could only have obtained the aircraft by force. In this case, he had only to start up and fly away.

Yes, there are weapons on board. Some crews even have teeth to backup their presence, now.

 

[ifly4food]

Avbug,
This rant is growing tiresome.
How many people have to point out to you that there are better ways to enact terrorism than a light airplane?
Every scenario you come up with is extremely far-fetched, and I don't care how much explosives knowledge you supposedly have.
You insist that a dedicated terrorist could pull it off. You fail to address tht a dedicated terrorist wouldn't bother. Terrorism is all about fear and the element of surprise. Even if another airliner was hijacked and flown into a building, the psychological effect would be less than before. "The Terrorists" (as the liberal media has become so fond of referring to Al Queda and the other militant groups) have done "the airplane thing". They will now find something we haven't thought of yet for their next attack, as doing such will instil more fear in us than a simple repeat.

 

[aero99]

ifly4foog quoted:

"Terrorism is all about fear and the element of surprise. Even if another airliner was hijacked and flown into a building, the psychological effect would be less than before. "The Terrorists" (as the liberal media has become so fond of referring to Al Queda and the other militant groups) have done "the airplane thing". They will now find something we haven't thought of yet for their next attack, as doing such will instil more fear in us than a simple repeat."

Couldn't agree more. While we are going round and round about airport security, the terrorist are already thinking up the next attack in a completely different format.

 

[avbug]

There is no rant, no excitement, and no emotion.

Terrorism is not about finding new and interesting ways to kill and maim. It's not about creativity. It's about terror. Pure and simple. Car bombs are very popular. New colors, new models, new locations aren't the issue, and aren't a consideration. However, the ability to plant one anywhere, any time, is a consideration. One doesn't need to kill a lot of people, or do a lot of damage. One needs only prove that one can perform the same act repeatedly; this is the essence of terrorism. Show that vulnerabilities exist, can be exploited, and that the entity performing the acts has the ability to do them regardless of the measures or obstacles that stand in their way.

A car cannot be driven into the center of a football stadium, past gates and barriers. An airplane can. A car cannot be driven directly into the center of a military base without inspection or barrier, but an airplane can. A car has not been driven into the whitehouse in such an act, but an airplane has, twice.
A light airplane, not coincidentally.


Just prior to the US involvement in the second world war, the vulnerability of many US assets was brought home not by the use of large bombers performing devestating acts, but by one man in a light airplane, dropping sacks of flour at night on the roofs of factories. His efforts lead to a complete overhaul and revitalizaton of the civil defense system, and a complete change in the nature of security in the United States. His efforts later lead to the creation of the Civil Air Patrol, and the grounding of much of the US private aircraft fleet for the purposes of security. Many years later, we are just as vulnerable.

A discussion about the true effect and potential cannot reasonably had here in open forum, but the true potential is definately real. It can easily be proven.

The United States military establishment had a similiar head-in-the-sand attitude about air power in general until Billy Mitchell used flimsy fabric airplanes to sink several ships, including a battleship, to proves point. Only then did people sit up and take notice. He died belittled, stripped of rank and honor, after making many predictions about US vulnerability. Only six years after his death, Pearl Harbor was attacked and the US plunged into WWII, in exactly the manner in which Mitchell said it would happen.

The point is quite simple. In several notable instances in our nation's history, those who attempted to demonstrate the vulnerability to institutions they cherished died in discrace attempting to raise a warning flag. Only in death were they posthumously vindicated.

Rest assured that the potential harm to our own cherished institutions is real; it is not a rant, nor is it a fallacy. Turn a blind eye if you will, decry it if you will, poke fun and turn from serious discussion of the fact. However, that does nothing to change the fact. We are in crisis, attested to by warm rotting bodies. We are in a state of false security, boyed by the false assurances of a temporary lull; we haven't been attacked in several months, the "war" is going well, so we must be okay. Not so, folks. It's only just begun.

 

[Wiggums]

Light airplanes can be used to commit a terrorist act, but there are several reason why they aren't effective weapons.

To begin with, no matter what explosive you use, light airplanes are light. They can't carry a serious amount of explosive. A thousand pound bomb, while destructive, can't match the force delivered by other methods. How much can a semi or moving truck carry? Also, what about the problem of lighting the charge? If the terrorist is going to run the aircraft into the target, there has to be some way to start the explosion. Moreover, even if the terrorist gets his homemade bomb to light, it's not gonna penetrate a building like the bombs you see the military use. Unless you can get the bomb to penetrate inside the building you're just going to rattle a few windows. It's unlikely that a terrorist would chose a light airplane with a bomb as his weapon.

Another problem with the light airplane method is the certain death of the terrorist. This is quite a deterrent to the average terrorist. It's going to take a skilled person to pull off something like this with a light aircraft, why waste the person for such little damage?

Even if it was decided that we are going completely deny terrorist the use of light airplanes, how are you going to do it.

Logically, it would seem that the best way would be to stop terrorists on the ground. None of the measures you've mentioned so far aren't real deterrents to a determined person. Prop locks? I can cut that off with the right tool in a few seconds. Disconnect the battery? With my buddy spinning the prop for me I don't even need that. Keeping the keys safe? I can start a Cessna with just about any key or tool. The airplanes I typically fly don't even use ignition keys. So, it seems like if you can get to the aircraft you'd be able to take it. So I guess you'd better guard every light aircraft in America. 200,000 airplanes at 18,000 thousand airports? How many national guard troops will that take, and at what cost? Even if you close half, or three-quarters of the airports in America you're looking at many, many troops. Even with troops, a dedicated terrorist can find a way to defeat them.

The only other way to stop terrorists would be to shoot them down in the air. Then you would need to setup and the flight plans and TFR stuff you spoke of earlier. So what happens if someone takes off without clearance? To begin with, you'll have to have fighters in the air or ready to scramble at all times. How much would that cost? Also, you'll have to visually id the aircraft and make sure you're not shooting down some grandmother. I can fly from my home airport to the nearest military base or major sports stadium in about ten minutes over the highly populated city. Would that be enough time to track, intercept, id, and then shoot the terrorist down? Would the military even shoot down a terrorist over a populated area?

My point is that there is no way to stop a determined terrorist, no matter what precautions or deterrents you have in effect. If you make one method harder, the others become relatively more easy. There isn't enough money, people, or resources to deny terrorist access to every piece of equipment in America that can be used for terrorism.

Lastly, if you enact TFRs and other restrictions then the terrorist have won. By making us change the way we do things, making them more difficult and restrictive for the innocent, is one of the goals of terrorism.

The course America is taking now, defeating the actual terrorists instead of denying them their methods is the correct solution. The terrorists involved got a few good blows in, the biggest one being 9/11. However, since then we've crippled the terrorist network that was guilty of those acts. Since America started going after the people responsible, no other acts of terrorism have taken place.