news media attacking GA again

[310]

WTVD, chan 11, an ABC station in Durham NC is airing another another "report" Thursday April 29 at 11 pm about how GA airplanes are not locked up and pilots can "just walk right to them".
Steve Daniels is the reporter and the station's phone number is 919-899-3600.

 

[avbug]

Oh no, Chicken Little! Whatever shall we do? If this report airs, the sky will fall! We're under attack! Forget the taliban. Forget Al Qaida! It's WTVD!

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

(had this been an actual emergency, you would have been creamed by now...)

 

[310]

Note that the date of the show has been edited. They aired the wrong date early this morning when I was recording a show.

Avbug, If you don't care about a post just keep your sarcastic trap shut and quit sticking your nose in unless you can be constructive.

 

[avbug]

Listen, **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**
...

Leave my **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.. wife out of it. This is an open forum. Don't like what I write?

**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** off, you mother **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**...
Kiss my *CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**...ass.


um...edited. as if you can't figure it out...

 

[310]

now, now, temper, temper

The fact is, knee jerk reactions to percieved risks can lead to changes in the laws in our country that pose a risk to the freedoms that make us the best country in the world in which to live. Making aircraft owners go thru security and get permission to go their aircraft is just as wrong headed and stupid as making automobile owners go thru security and getting permission daily to drive their cars. Thats is where GA is headed if some common sense isn't applied to all these "security threats"

Avbug, this is the second time you have gotten sarcastic when I post info about some wrong-headed media coverage about aviation. If you don't like it, just ignore it or use the feature on the board to ignore my posts.

 

[redd]

310, you're a weasel and also a coward.

This is an open forum pal, and if you can't take the heat of someone disagreeing with your opinion, then don't post. If you didn't know it already, that is what a forum is, a place where one can discuss opposing viewpoints. There was nothing wrong with what avbug said, in fact is was kind of funny-you sound like a whiney kid. Go post on a more huggy feel good forum like studentpilot.com.

Your response, that you've erased, was a low blow and a immature response to what he said, plus your whole post is stupid. In reality any plane can be stolen, and there IS a threat that wasn't there before 9-11. GA flying is still a privilege, not a right.

Is this what you do when someone disagrees whith you?

Grow up.

 

[Ralgha]

Exactly how is there a threat now that there wasn't before 9-11? The threat is the same as it ever was, people just realize it now.

 

[redd]

Right on...

 

[fr0g]

"In reality any plane can be stolen, and there IS a threat that wasn't there before 9-11. GA flying is still a privilege, not a right"

I agree it is a privilege.
Just what threat are you referring to, that did not exist pre 9/11?

 

[redd]

The threat manifested itself on 9-11, but it would actually be more accurate to say pre-AlQuida-Bin Laden, and that takes us back to the '80's.

Are you serious that you don't get the 9-11 connection?? or are you trying to make another point?

 

[310]

What I originally posted in response to Avbug's first post in this thread was much more nasty than what is now there. I decided to go back online and edit the post but Avbug already saw it (in 70 mins) so that's what ticked Avbug off so bad. And my post was pretty bad and so Avbug, I am sorry for that post. It was over the line.

Redd, the point is not aircraft theft but whether we want a situation in this country where an aircraft owner has to get permission to go to their plane, get permission to take off, (like having a countrywide ADIZ), pass through security a general aviation airports etc. If so, the terrorist win by changing the U.S.
If so why not place the same restrictions on driving our cars, having checkpoints at state borders etc. Pretty ridiculous? Yes.
So lets not let ridiculous restrictions be placed on aviation.
One way to preserve our rights is to educate the media and the public of the facts.

Everyone here is a AOPA member right?

 

[350DRIVER]

310, who in the he!! really cares?


I am NOT a AOPA member if that makes you feel any better? (I sure hope you don't turn me in) for many of the reasons that avbug is not a member. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have read as of late


3 5 0

 

[avbug]

I'm not a member of AOPA either. I met with Phil Boyer last year regarding this very topic, and discussed security concerns vs. GA. He and I parted agreeing to disagree, as it were.

I'm a former member of AOPA. I have seen AOPA in action at the federal level in certain interactions with the FAA and other agencies, and I must say, I am unimpressed. AOPA has become far more bureaucracy than a help. I won't deny it does good things, but largely it exists now to employ it's own personnel.

On the topic of security concerns vs. GA aircraft, I believe it's only a matter of time before they're effectively used for ill design. I was called a fool for my belief years ago that it would be inevitable that eventually someone would use a large aircraft such as a 757 as a terrorist weapon against the most obvious of targets; the world trade center. I'm sad to say, that inevitability eventually came to pass.

Likewise, I believe it's only a matter of time until our own complacency sees the use of light airplanes for the same purpose.

I've heard all the tired arguements. Light airplanes can't do any collateral damage. That's really quite irrelevant. What is relevant is the public reaction, which will be to shut down general aviation as we know it, and to place heavy restrictions upon most of our air industry. The last shutdown was only short time, and did an emormous amount of damage to the industry. The number of people killed or the amount of damage done in a physical attack is nothing compared to the damage that will occur due to political fallout.

It's only a matter of time until light aircraft are used in a coordinated effort, and the public perception will be overwhelmingly bad. That few people get hurt in the attacks will be irrelevant. Unless something is done to ensure that this doesn't happen, it's all but inevitable.

I've heard the tired arguements that someone might just as well use a truck, or a boat. True, but neither had anywhere near the impact on the general public as does the use of the airplane. The use of an airplane is always sensational; it has been since it's inception; it always generates a high degree of public interest. Nobody is going to shut down the highways, no matter how many car or truck bombs get set off. But most certainly if a few aircraft (even light Cessna's) are used in a coordinated effort, the reaction may well be to stop all GA aircraft from flying until hard, concrete security measures can be taken.

It's not fanciful. It's inevitable, given our current state, unless something is done to prevent this. Doubtless I'll be labled a fool for maintaining this view; certainly Phil Boyer thought so. Then again, so many said the same when I expressed my belief that eventually a 757 would be used to strike the WTC. Nobody's laughing about that now...I certainly hope the world continues to laugh at my assertion regarding GA security; I hope it never happens. But, I fear that unless we take greater precautions than we now do, it won't be so funny in the near future, either.

Now you tell me: do you value your flying privileges enough to take security seriously and prevent this from happening, or will you simply whine about how the media is making something of nothing, and go on looking the other way?

 

[350DRIVER]

I second the above, very well written avbug.

AOPA has become far more bureaucracy than a help.

That just about sums it up.


3 5 0

 

[310]

Avbug, I hope you are wrong.

What would you think of security measures at the aircraft like prop locks, etc?

A border agent(on TV) said that they have caught people from 140 different countries crossing the Mexican-US border. Keeping terrorist out is the first step. Years ago I would never have supported it but maybe a national citizen card system is justified now.

 

[avbug]

Prop locks are a good idea; no soloution, but part of the soloution. Better cabin locks would be a good start. The key to my suzuki samurai will open a good share of the aircraft on the ramp. I know for a fact it will open a lot of commercial aircraft. That's not good. I have a key ring with about 200 keys on it that will open almost anything on the ramp, anywhere. Also not good.

I visited a FBO tonight, and saw a Learjet leaking fuel all over the place. It was in a dark part of the ramp. There had been a line change, and the new lineman hadn't seen it. As I approached the aircraft, I noted that the hellhole hatch was open, the 02 filler door was open, and the engine latches were undone. Not something a professional mechanic would do. (Turned out the crew did it, then left it like that and flew home). Possible evidence of sabotage or vandalism. I reported it to the new line shift, showed them what I'd found, and left it in their hands. Otherwise, likely nobody would have checked.

In that particular case, suppose someone had been in the process of doing something with the aircraft, and I had interrupted them? Granted, it was the fuel leak that drew my attention, but the open hatches also were a red flag. Anything unusual should be reported.

I'm still amazed that pilot certificates don't have photographs on them. There's no excuse for not having photographs on the certificates, along with additional security features. The new certificates are a step in the right direction there (except for the mechanic certificate, which should have Charles Taylor on it, instead of the Wright Brothers... ). Minor, but still something that should be addressed for security purposes.

Many will disagree, but after September 11, no aircraft were permitted in the air without a flight plan and a discreet code. Whatever one's feelings on this, clearly any aircraft that hasn't published it's intentions under such a system is in violation, and a potential risk. I don't think that's such a bad idea...any aircraft that simply flies without publishing it's intent (not really that much different than filing a flight plan) can be considered nonpartipatory, and dealt with as a threat. A couple of days after 09/11 I was arriving in Portland and noted a Cessna 185 was forced down just prior to our arrival, for that very reason. Strict, but it works.

There are many, many ways that security can be improved for little cost, without having to infringe or hamper our flying system. I'm not saying that specific flightplans, authorizations or clearances, and discreet codes are necessarily the way to go, but it's an example of a way to increase visibility and to identify nonparticipatory aircraft. It's not perfect concept, and there are trouble areas...but the point is that there are a lot of steps that can yet be taken to further advance security and protect general aviation...if not from the actual threat of terrorism or interference, then the public perception of it.

I had a habit as an instructor of watching people preflight after I had squirreled away a tennis shoe or stuffed animal in a cowl, or put car keys in places that the person should look, but probably wouldn't. Showing them the object after they had "looked" served to reinforce that it's important to look, feel, reach, shine a light, and be thorough. It's not enough to simply bend down and look under the airplane; it's important to crawl under there and examine the gear well. Usually it's bugs and critters and bird nests I find, but who is to say it won't be an IED (improvised explosive device) that's there? What's it going to hurt to look, and the hydraulic leak or seep you find there could save your life or save some dollars.

SIDA badges work well in a SIDA area, but I don't see any reason that a national badging system couldn't be effected with little effort or cost that provides a visible badge with security features, photo ID, and fingerprints on the back (or a thumb print) for immediate verification, on a national level for avaition in general.

I'm not one for giving up freedoms, but unless we take steps to protect the privileges we now enjoy, we may lose them. We can do so without greatly altering the freedoms we now enjoy, and there are a lot of ways this can be done.

The US Navy utilized a specialized team of operators years ago called Red Cell, that simulated terrorist attacks at military installations and secure facilities. They practiced planting dummy IED's, taking down facilities, taking hostages, and exposing holes in security. They were very effective, though not well received due to the clear evidence they provided that security is more often a joke than a fact. Today, the FAA has teams of personnel that visit airports employing SIDA's, who sneak onto ramps, walk into facilities, etc...to see who challenges them, and how far they get. But we can do more, and should do more, in the GA end of things, too. We could very easily have teams of individuals who help create an awareness of our vulnerabilities in the industry, and use it as a teaching tool to begin sewing up the many holes that exist. Unfortunately, the FAA has clearly painted a negative picture by striking out at people like the college student who planted the knives...it shouldn't be a private freelance effort, but an official effort, and any exposed weaknesses should be noted gratefully.

The field is wide open for improving security. It's so full of holes right now that lack of security is the watch word...anything resembling security is the hole, presently. Sort of like putting a narrow strip of fence in the middle of a cow pasture and hoping the cows will stay put. That's the existing security. We need a bigger fence that's more visible, better known to all, and we need the input of the industry to do it. Otherwise, we're all going to suffer.

 

[Dubya]

1984

Lets just implant chips in every American so we can keep track of all their actions. Let's place a guard at every entrance to every vulnerable location in the country. Let's put checkpoints on our highways. Let's make travel in this country as restrictive as we can. Let's put a camera on every corner and record everything.
Thought police?

Whatever


Avbug...you give examples of things to improve security...then you backtrack and say that maybe they aren't the way to go and that you aren't advocating restricting our freedom. So what are you saying exactly?



As for your claim of predicting 9/11....do you have anything other than a claim to prove you "knew" this type of attack was inevitable? That is an incredibly bold statement to make in light of that days events.

It is easy to sit around and say something is going to happen like use of light aircraft in an attack. It is fear mongering such as this that prompts those that aren't familiar with something to fear it. So what if a light aircraft is used in a terrorist attack? What if it is a bus, train, truck, ship, boat, or horse drawn carriage? We can sit around and live in fear...or we can live our lives as we should in a free society that carries the risk of attack. Sounds like the terrorists have beaten some of us.

W

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I always loved it when they had the paper certificates. Getting your ATP/multi/MEI would be as hard as finding some whiteout and a photocopier. Almost any badge would be the same for a terrorist. I have friends with fake drivers lisences and they are fairly secure (sealed holographic plastic cover, magnetic strips, ect).

The thing with the flight plan idea is that alot of training aircraft don't file when in the area. If they need to file to takeoff, do you think the FSS' could take that sort of traffic?

Lastly, it will be a pain in the ass to secure every single aircraft and airport. It is easy to secure most places with an FBO or other facilities, but what about the places that are just a grass strip and a few hangers?

I agree that something has to be done. The problem is that this isn't a single airport where it is a carefully controlled area. The GA airports as a whole are only as secure as the least secured airport.

Dubya:

GA also includes 135 people too. A leer or gulfstream could probibly carry enough fuel/explosives to do a massive amount of damage to a building or structure. Plus there are larger aircraft that are under 135 too (I have seen several 727s operated by non-airlines).

 

[310]

http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html

This is a link to AOPA's airport watch program and the toll free number to which to report suspicious activities.

The number is 1-866-GA-SECURE

 

[Dubya]

I didn't separate 135 from GA....but I think this thread is more directed at the light aircraft...not chartered Gulfstream and Lear's. Besides...i'll go out on a limb and state that the security surrounding those type of planes is a bit tighter.

W