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??