Incident in Tampa? Opinions on kid pilot

[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.