Don’t be such a kneejerk, Johnny. You’re strangled by your own argument. If Chicago is subtantially defenseless from a Cessna launched from Kenosha Municipal, it’s completely defenseless from a Cessna launched from Meigs.
You can argue that private aviators are insufficiently security conscious to be allowed to operate from an airstrip in the heart of a major city. What the hell was a pimply-faced teenager with a death wish doing in an unsupervised aircraft to begin with?
Really. The World Trade Center was hit with a pair of 767s and it leveled them, so forgive me if I dismiss your assessment of the ballistic potential of airliners as naive to the point of delusional.
The issue is whether Meigs is a sufficient aviation terror risk to justify its immediate closure. In my opinion it is. If you want to talk about the risk of someone trucking a bomb under Lower Wacker Drive, take it to another thread.
You don’t be a kneejerk. Chicago – or any city – is completely defenseless against Ryder trucks full of explosives. By your logic, no trucks should be allowed anywhere near a city.
Given that pilots must undergo a lot of training to get their licenses, and given that we tend to protecct out priveleges jealously, it can be argued that pilots are more security-conscious than the general public. And that “pimply-faced teenager” stole the airplane. Surely you don’t think that someone couldn’t steal a truck? It would be a hell of a lot easier than stealing an airplane.
Yes, really. A B-25, in case you didn’t know – and I assume by your posts you don’t, is much larger than a typical Cessna. The B-25 did not level the Empire State Building. And 767s are substantially larger than B-25s. So you’ll forgive me if dismiss your assessment of the dangers caused by aircraft you know nothing about.
Your opinion is illogical. If you support action to prevent terrorist attacks, you must look at the threat. There is more of a threat from explosives-laden trucks than from a puny Cessna or Piper. If you support closing an airport because of an insignificant threat, how can you not support actions to reduce greater threats? The only conclusion is that you don’t care about “stopping terrorism” at all, but that you just don’t like little airplanes.
Yeah, I get it, lee… you care about flying guns, spyplanes, and the airlines. Military and commercial aviation. The one place where the “little people” CAN own a slice of the sky - general aviation - is an “eyesore” to you.
I should point out for completion’s sake, that the WTC survived both impacts. It was the full-to-california loads of fuel that wound up destroying the buildings. That’s a lot of fuel. You couldn’t fit that much on a small plane.
Obviously not: otherwise how could a 15 year old could gain unauthorized access to the aircraft in the first place? Were the doors unlocked? Was the key left in the ignition? Where was the flight instructor while this was happening?
No shit. What’s more, he didn’t commandeer the aircraft in a daring hijack with a boxcutter, he just climbed aboard and took off. You can’t argue that “pilots are more security-conscious than the general public” when a kid who’s too young to drive can swipe a plane right off the tarmac.
My opinion is that Meigs is a terror risk and the mayor was justified closing it for that reason. If you want to persuade me to reconsider that opinion, you need to:
(a) prove that Meigs isn’t a terror risk, or
(b) prove the airport’s benefits outweigh such terror risk.
Either of these would be significantly more influential than the arguments put forth so far.
KoalaBear, Meigs Field is not a terror risk, in and of itself. (I hope you won’t see this as a straw man argument, KB. If you still have any specific concerns, let us know.)
The scenario people seem to be most concerned with is that a plane could take off from Meigs and crash into one of the nearby skyscrapers before it could be intercepted or even detected. But the aircraft that use Meigs are too small to cause signifigant damage to a building. (There would be some damage, and possibly fatalities within the building, but far from the scale that a terrorist would want.)
To make the situation worse, some might suggest, the terrorist could load the airplane with explosives before taking off. But that would be pointless as well. To get any explosives to Meigs you would have to load them on a car or truck and drive past the same skyscrapers you later intend to fly into. Much simpler to just cut out the middleman and drive into the building.
I do not see any way that aircraft operating from Meigs pose a risk of a terrorist attack. It is possible, with Meigs now closed, that Mayor Daley will push to have the prohibited airspace around the city expanded. Whether that’s an effective measure, or purely symbolic, is debatable.
There is no evidence that small airports pose a terror risk. If you have some, I’d like to see it.
(b) Since small airports don’t pose a terror risk, the simple fact that they allow light-aircraft traffic to operate without interfering with commercial jet (“heavies”) traffic is benefit enough. Beyond that, Broomstick and others have pointed out many benefits.
Did 16 aircraft get stranded at Meigs? I assume they are going to have to have the wings removed and be trucked out to another field and re-assembled?
Who is liable for this? I would hope the pilots don’t have to pay for that. That would be a ‘taking’, wouldn’t it? The government causing private citizens to incur a special cost due to the government’s actions?
I hope those 16 pilots get together and sue the city of Chicago for the cost of transporting those planes, plus the time lost, plus punitive damages. Overbearing governments need to be taught a lesson.
I never flew into Meigs, but it was a beautiful field. One of the more unique GA airports around, and one of the best-known in the world.
Some people never realize how many benefits accrue from General Aviation. There’s far too much class warfare and special interests involved.
And the class warfare is usually backwards anyway. People often use the argument that the rich and powerful fly the airplanes and wield undue influence. But when a small airport gets closed, often when you look at the factors influencing the closure you find a small group of very powerful special interests.
Any rich people live under the approach or departure paths of Meigs?
If you are talking about the Tampa incident his access was AUTHORIZED. The person in question was a flight student enrolled in a flight school getting flight training. Although soloing is not permitted until 16, it is nothing unusual for teenagers younger than that to be taking lessons.
The student in question had been sent out to the airplane to perform a pre-flight per standard procedure. This is NOT a case of someone sneaking onto an airport and stealing an airplane - it’s a case of someone who is allowed at an airport going nuts. It’s much closer to that Egypt Air flight where a co-pilot went nuts and delibrately dove the plane into the ocean than a typical terrorist attack.
In response to that, there have been numerous discussions of appropriate screening for student pilots, and it is now standard procedure that a flight instructor be with a student pilot at all times near airplanes until that person solos. Which still doesn’t solve the problem of a “lone crazy”. US aviation as a whole has been averaging 2-3 suicides a year for decades. Pre-Sept 11, though, no one gave a damn because “those people” are crazy to be flying anyway, right?
Don’t believe me? Search the accident databases yourself.
Strictly speaking, he’s too young to fly solo, too - it’s no different than a 15 year old swiping a car for a joyride - or to rob a bank. That doesn’t make cars inherently unsafe.
Well, sir, you are certainly allowed your opinion, although I disagree. Let me have another shot at this.
First of all, let’s talk about theft of airplanes. After all, the sercurity of ALL small airports should be of concern, right? Let’s talk about Meigs - an airport I pass every day to and from my place of work so I can speak somewhat of physical layout of the place.
You are concerned about a theft of an airplane from Meigs - OK, that’s a reasonable question. I say it is very much less likely an airplane would be stolen from Meigs than, say, from my home field in Indiana. First of all, there are no hangars at Meigs. The entire extent of Northerly Island is flat, open land visible to the control tower at all times. There is a substantial fence around the entire airport, except at the access driveway. You can NOT walk about that airport without being visible at all times. You can NOT row a boat up to the side of the island and crawl onto the airport land without being seen. There is nowhere to hide. There are flood lights. It’s in an area of the city that is active and full of people at all hours of the day and night. There have long been police patrols when the airport is closed.
In addition - there has been strict security since it re-opened after Sept 11. You can NOT go out to an airplane - even if it’s YOUR airplane - without passing through security. You can not load anything aboard your airplane without it going through security. The city of Chicago also reserves the right to inspect the interior of your airplane - and rumor has it they’ve been quite thorough about this. In other words - no, you can’t sneak a bomb of any significant size onto an airplane at Meigs!. That leaves ONLY the amount of damage a small airplane can do on it’s own. Yes, it will cause damage - about as much as a car or pickup truck crashing into a building will do. Often less. Are we now clear on this? The security at Meigs was comparable to that at O’Hare or Midway, and because there were a lot fewer people in and out it was a heck of a lot easier to keep track of everyone.
Go look at a picture on the web - there’s been enough of them put up lately. You’ll see for yourself. There’s nowhere to hide on that “island”.
OK, let’s talk about (theorectical) airplane theft at my home field. At first glance, it looks like this might be a significant problem. We do have a fence - but it’s only about 3 feet high, no barbed wire, and has openings instead of lockable gates. There are no lights on the ramp at night. Wow! Just walk right up and grab, right?
Wrong.
Not all security is easily visible
First of all, the keys aren’t in the airplanes - they’re locked up. AND there are additional “prop locks” on the airplanes - when they aren’t all locked into a hangar overnight, that is. Even transient airplanes are required to lock up at night, either in the hangar or with the prop lock.
Granted, someone could break into a hangar. They could cut off the cable for the prop lock. Even without a key they could “hot-wire” the airplane and then hand-prop it to start it. That, however, will take time, require a flashlight, and create some noise.
Which gets to another layer of security. The county sheriff’s aviation department is based there. There is ALWAYS a police presence there. Last time I flew at night I was most definitely challenged by the county mounties and had to reassure them I was authorized to use the plane. Mind you, the guy knew me quite well - not only are we both commonly seen at the airport, I’m also one of the very few women flying out of there AND they guy HAD to remember me since he’s the one who helicoptered me out of a hayfield 3 years ago after a forced landing. Nonetheless, I got the third degree. Some of the local teeny boppers who thought it would be amuzing to sneak onto the airport at night have seen the inside of the county lockup.
Which also brings me to another point - even though you don’t see it there really is much more security at small airfields than there used to be. ANYWHERE I go now, as soon as I land someone comes to see who I am. That applies even to fields a couple hundred miles from big cities - as well it should, because to an airplane a hundred miles isn’t much at all. And we won’t get into that incident I know about where a pilot had to convince overzealous airport security that it was safe to leave the standard-issue cockpit fire extinguisher in the airplane.
But let’s say someone did sneak onto my airport at night, evade the local police patrol, quitely cut off the prop lock, hot wire the airplane, hand prop it… OK, now you have a very loud machine roaring in the middle of the night. The on-duty cops will DEFINITELY know you’re there and something is up. You then have to get to the runway or other handy take-off spot before they park a big ol’ truck in front of you. On the ground, the 4-wheel drive is going to move faster than the airplane (airplane moves too fast it takes off). The moving prop will chew the heck out of the vehicle, but it won’t be able to get past it - it just can’t move that much weight. Sure, you COULD take off from the ramp… and then you have to avoid the trees and powerlines around the field, any one of which can take down a plane easy. Try the grass — we’ve got swamp around us, you’ll get stuck in the mud (heck, people haven’t done that just by being stupid in daylight).
Well, maybe they pull it off - problem is, once they’re off the ground there’s no way to stop them. They’ll be in the Loop in 10 minutes or less. If they fly under the radar (easy to do - pilots have a pretty good idea where it does and doesn’t reach) and out over the lake they might be heard, but they won’t be seen until they’re actually flying over Grant Park.
Contrast that with Meigs field, were there is NO WAY to sneak up to an airplane unobserved, where the ground is lit 24/7, and there are constant police and other security presence.
And THAT’S why I say Meigs is less a threat than any other small airfield within 100 miles. There’s no way a plane can take off from that field without being vetted.
So, go ahead - believe the fairy tales the Mayor tells you, that you’re somehow safer now. YOU ARE NOT! You are in just as much - if not more (because there’s no ATC to give even a minute or two of warning) - danger than you were last week.
As for the benefits - they’ve been listed: medical flights, rescure flights, a place for little airplanes to go so they stay out of the bigger, busier airports, support for business (you know, the people who supply jobs), and a little revenue for the city. Meigs actually could be self-supporting if it wasn’t hamstrung by city ordinances no other airport in the country has to put up with.
Any further questions on the security issues? Any further concerns? I’ll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.
That price might be quite high, lee. I hope he truly means that.
For starters, he broke FAR Part 157 which requires a MINIMUM of 30 days notice to close ANY airport, irrespective of ownership. We (the outraged folks) are sincerely hoping the FAA will pursue this matter with zeal.
There is an Illinois state law regarding proper notification prior to modifying a runway. I’d say Meig’s runway is certainly “modified”. So he broke that law, too. Did I say that loud enough? He broke the law.
The lawyers haven’t finished lining up - but from just APOA there are several hundred looking for ways to stick it to the Mayor. Criminal, civil, state, federal… the legal fees alone are going to cost the city big time. Plus, of course, there is the option of sueing Daley personally for this. Those 16 stranded pilots have already been offered legal services by some of the best aviation law experts in the country.
There is a boycott being organized. Remember, a lot of general aviation pilots own businesses. They will not be doing business with Chicago.
Although most general aviation pilots are like myself, earning less that six figures per year, there are a significant minority who are filthy filthy rich… and some are volunteering funds for legal action.
So far, the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aviation Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) have signed onto a campaign to, and I quote “make Daley feel the pain”. That’s within less than a week. The first one of those listed organizations is 400,000 members. Two of them are international in scope.
There are 700,000 active licensed pilots in the US - and they are very, very angry right now. All of them.
Add in the folks who don’t fly, but have a vested interest in general aviation, or are sympathetic for other reasons - you’re looking at well over a million people who would really, really really like to see Mayor Daley suffer for this.
And they have money.
And influence.
They vote.
A lot of them are lawyers.
Some of them are members of Congress, who are asking why, if Chicago needs more runways so damn badly Daley tore up a perfectly usable runway in the middle of the night. Remember, money is tight in Washington… Congress would love to make some budget cuts… and O’Hare and Midway are heavily dependent on Federal support.
We may not get Meigs field back… but Daley won’t get his park. He’ll be long dead of old age before this gets out of litigation. The fall out for the city might be quite painful.
Because, you see, Meigs was more than just a strip of pavement acting as an “eyesore” in a park (oh, like it’s been IMPROVED this week, huh? Open it wasn’t particularly lovely - NOW it looks positively hideous. Nice improvement.) Meigs was and is center stage in a long-running battle about whether we will have general aviation in this country or won’t - a battle that goes back 10 years and more. Maybe you haven’t seen it… but that’s because most folks ignore general aviation. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, or doesn’t exist.
If nothing else, this will be entertaining to watch the opposing lawyers fight it out.
Actually not - the FAA allowed them to take-off from the taxiway, which is only 700 feet shorter than the runway itself.
I’m not sure if Daley’s kicking himself for not tearing that up, too, or if he delibrately left it intact.
The Chicago Tribune reports that city workers had, for a week, been going down to Meigs each night to count the airplanes and report what size they were to city hall. In other words, Daley waited until it was only the smaller airplanes there, and was careful not to trap the aircraft of any large, important, or wealthy corporation. Just the “little people”.
The city is liable, of course… and will be paying hotel bills and other expenses at the very least. The lawyers for the 16 are saying the Chicago owes for lost business - Daley claims they’re off the hook for that. Just one of many items that will end up in court.
As I’ve mentioned - there are a number of lawyers lining up for the chance to sue Chicago (and possibly Daley on a personal level) for this outrage. Yes, he overstepped his bounds, even if the city does own the land. No man should be above the law.
As I said - Daley waited until the “rich and powerful” had left Meigs for the night. He was very careful to wait until only the “little guys”, the pilots that don’t have special privileges or great wealth, were there. No doubt under the theory they just don’t have the money to effectively sue the city.
Daley lives in Printer’s Row, a neighborhood due west of the “museum campus” of which Meigs is a part. He can probably see it from his condo.
Which is typical… someone moves in next door to an airport that’s been there for 50 years and a year later declares it a nuisance and demand it be moved. Excuse me? You didn’t notice the airport when you moved in? But, to be honest, he hated that airport even back when he lived in Bridgeport (“toity-toid and da tracks”)
Let’s recognize that the object of terror is terror, not to raze skyscrapers per se. Meigs just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a 2,000-lb plane with 50 gallons of fuel were to make a left turn and strike the football stadium in the grandstands, the stadium itself would suffer minimal damage but the carnage would be spectacular. More would die from the fire than the impact, and more still would die in a stampede for the exits. And of course all this would be playing out on live television, a highly desirable terror objective in itself.
Or aerosolized ricin, or powdered anthrax, or a variety of other toxins that can be effectively distributed using off-the-shelf agricultural fittings.
That does not surprise me. We used to think the same thing about passenger airliners, yes? The terrorist of yore might haved pulled a gun and demand the flight be rerouted to Syria, but today’s fanatic pulls an X-Acto knife and configures the aircraft as a GPS-guided cruise missile.
What a terrorist could do with a Piper Aerobat launched directly into the heart of a major city may be outside our imagination at present, but we’d be foolish to assume that a threat we can’t readily conceptualize does not in fact exist.
Flying a plane is significantly more complex than driving an car, yet you’d never hear of a licensed driving instructor leaving a 15 year old behind the wheel of a motor vehicle unsupervised. This was a scandalous lapse of judgment on the flight instructor’s part at best, yet you’re suggesting this is hardly unusual?
Why is it that the most fundamental safety and security precautions – not giving children unsupervised aircraft experience for example – instituted only after loss of life or property has occurred?
The civilian aviation industry seems chronically unable or perhaps unwilling to anticipate even the most obvious hazards. Frequently they react only when disaster (or more likely, federal regulation in the wake of a disaster) compels them to do so. The commercial sector is patting itself on the back for such bold new security innovations as reinforced cockpit doors and more stringent baggage inspections, but had these simple precautions been in place on 9/10 the most audacious terrorist atrocity in history would not have occurred.
I’m therefore pessimistic about the private aviation sector’s ability to recognize risk let alone adequately prepare for it. With respect to Meigs, the “too little too late” philosophy of safety assurance just isn’t good enough this time – closing the airport in advance of a security breach seems the most effective means of preventing one.
I’m not sure I buy the proposition that a small aircraft can inflict no more damage than an automobile, and even if that’s true its terror potential is vastly more potent. Today’s small aircraft is almost certainly of superior performance to the biplanes of World War I, yet the planes of that era revolutionized warfare by making it obvious that people and property are defenseless when attacked from above.
How can the loss of Meigs ATC exacerbate public risk if, as you pointed out on page 1, you can’t be reliably tracked by radar anyway?
The aviators participating in this thread seem to be holding mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously, expressing one or the other according to which version supports the premise that Meigs should not be closed. The risk of terror is conveniently grave when launched from Pal-Waukee and conveniently trivial when launched from Northerly Island as best serves the argument at the moment.
You say a private plane is next to impossible to steal, buttonjockey308 boasts that he could do it in a heartbeat: I have the feeling both ends are being played against the middle with respect to the actual truth.
Pilot, supporters express safety concerns after close call
Supporters point out that the air space controlled by the tower helped avert a midair collision Wednesday. Here is the audio exchange between the tower controller and one of the two pilots.
Pilot: Tell Mayor Daley you just saved my life.
Tower: I would, but I don’t count. Why don’t you do it?
Pilot: I guess we don’t count either, though.
A pilot from Arlington Heights survived a close call in the air Thursday thanks to help from an air traffic controller. Right around the time yesterday afternoon that some of the last flights were leaving Meigs, Russell Shavitz was flying south in his Cessna with a friend about two-and-a-half miles out over Lake Michigan.
Shavitz got permission from the Meigs controller to pass through Meigs airspace. When he was two miles south, the controller called him, and said there was another plane, not in radio contact, coming straight at him.
“He said, ‘traffic…12 o’clock your altitude… not talking to the guy,’” said Shavitz.
It was hazy yesterday. Shavitz says he couldn’t immediately see the approaching plane, then got an urgent call from the Meigs tower. The air traffic controller who has confirmed the incident for ABC7 News says he told Shavitz to immediately “descend to avoid.”
“I descended as fast as I could to my maximum airspeed,” said Shavitz. “This guy went over the top of us. He definitely was at my altitude. We would’ve had a collision had it not been for that tower guy.”
The controller would not discuss the incident on camera tonight, but says it was a close call. Just how close is not completely clear. But local pilots say it underscores their concern that closing Meigs means uncontrolled airspace, and a much greater potential for mid-air collisions along the lakefront.
Even with controlled air space, there have been mid-air crashes near Meigs. Six years ago, seven people died in the crash. A new radar system was installed shortly after.
The city is not yet clear on who’ll be watching the lakefront, whether that burden might fall to controllers at Midway or O’Hare.
“That’s something that’s being looked at…we’re talking technology to have the ability to monitor the airspace,” said Dir. Emergency Communications Cortez Trotter.
Every year there are thousands of flights along the lakefront, particularly during the summer. They will continue to be legal despite the no-fly zone over part of the city. Who will be watching and how they’ll be controlled-- if at all-- are unanswered questions.
If that is true, then virtually any airport in the nation is in the “wrong place at the wrong time”.
You DO realize that small planes seldom blow up on impact? The odds are there would be no fire at all.
Mass panic - yes, that could happen.
>sigh< Could you get the facts straight, please? The 9/11 planes were not flown on GPS, they were flown by hand, OK? It’s the American military that has the GPS guided missiles, not Al Quaeda
Um… look, I understand folks can get riled up here on Great Debates, but again, could we please try for some accuracy here? Piper doesn’t make anything called an “aerobat”. That’s a Cessna product. Is the rest of your knowledge of aviation this shakey?
Actually, it’s not. Flying a small plane like a single-engine 4 seat or less Cessna or Piper is comparable to driving a car or pickup with a standard transmission. What’s complex is understanding weather and the regulations. Flying in and of itself is not difficult.
I guess you just blasted past the part about him being sent out to pre-flight, NOT to solo. As I said, he was too young to fly on his own. It is comparable to a 15 year old being told to go open the garage door and load the trunk of a car, then taking it into his head to start the machine and drive down the road on his own. But, of course, that’s NEVER happened, right? 15 year old kids just NEVER go joyriding in cars, right?
Could you please calm down and actually READ what I said? Flight training of teen agers is common. Leaving them UNSUPERVISED is not. Those are two different things. Heck, at 15 I wasn’t old enough to drive a car, but I was taking driver’s ed. Same thing, really.
Hey, I didn’t have “unsupervised” aircraft experience till I was well over 30. As I said, flight instruction of teenagers - which implies a flight instructor in attendance - is common. ALL trainers have dual controls, NO ONE is permitted to solo until 16.
So tell me, once the kid is inside the plane and the thing is started, what’s the instructor supposed to do? Run up and stop the prop with his bare hands? He called the authorities - just as you would do for a stolen car.
The PILOTS have been calling for better cockpit doors for 30 years - don’t blame us. The FEDS said they were unnecessary - until 9/11.
Me too - I feel they would inflict less damage than a car of equal size.
Define “superior performance”. You see, you get so many details wrong I really wonder how you’re making these judgements so I want to be sure we really are talking about the same terms before I counter your opinions.
>sigh< One more time… the air traffic control tower at Meigs actively watched for aircraft because that was their job. They were in contact with pilots over the lake who could also report suspicious behavior in other aviators (such as a low-flying plane off-shore) and relay that to proper authorities. The Meigs tower provided air traffic services for the part of the airspace in the “radar shadow” of O’Hare and the Elgin TRACON.
Now… literally no one is watching that airspace. Even pilots who WANT air traffic assistance can no longer obtain it. In such a high-traffic area as Chicago, in a part of the city that can have 5 or 6 helicoptors overhead during various news events, that lack vastly increases the risk of an ordinary accident - never mind making it easier for terrorism to occur.
Oh, and by the way - it’s not “reliably tracked by radar”, there is no radar tracking east of the skyscrapers. That whole lakefront is in a “shadow” for the simple reason that radar doesn’t pass through solid objects.
No… what I’m saying is that it’s MUCH EASIER to launch terror from Palwaukee or Gary than from Meigs… because Meigs was much better guarded and secured. Is it easier to rob a house with a cheap lock or one with multiple deadbolts?
Yeah, I could easily steal a private plane, too - if I was in an unobserved area for sufficient time, and had any tools required to deal with locks. As I pointed out - there are multiple locks on the planes at my field, plus a human presence. The theory is the locks and other inconveniences slow down the thief long enough for the regular rounds of guard duty to find him or her, or defeating the locks would cause so much noise and disruption the sound would lead to investigation. Kind of the reason you buy “The Club” for your car.
For planes that DO pose a real risk - ag sprayers, for instance - they are not only locked in hangars but things like spark plugs removed at the end of the day. Sure… a thief could bring a box of those with him to install, but that would definitely add to the time required to do the deed, wouldn’t it?
The irony of all this, really, is that folks are so concerned with stealing. Tell me, did Tim McVeigh STEAL a Ryder truck… or did he RENT it? Did Mohammed Atta STEAL a plane ticket… or BUY one? Did he STEAL his box-cutter… or BUY it?
WHY would a terrorist STEAL an airplane when he could RENT one for $60/hour? It would be foolish to steal. Why? Because from the point the first crime is committed, that’s when the clock starts ticking for you to complete the job or get caught. Don’t commit a crime until you absolutely have to.
Again, people are focusing so obsessively on imagined terrors they can’t see the real ones. Sure… scapegoat pilots and airplanes… but ignore the possibility of car and truck bombs and boats full of C4, all of which have been much, much more commonly used by terrorists.
Do you know why? Because it’s so much cheaper to recuit car bombers - MOST people already know how to drive. Pilots though… you have to train those. And it can be expensive. You pick a potential terrorist off the streets of Amman or Baghdad or Tehran he probably knows how to drive already… but those countries don’t have civilian aviation. You want a pilot-trained terrorist, you’ll have to send him to the US, pay for his lessons, and hope he doesn’t desert the cause in the meanwhile.
Or just pour anthrax into letters and send them through the mail. It’s so much cheaper and there’s so much opportunity for causing terror because EVERYBODY uses the mail. They haven’t caught the guilty party(s) on that one, have they? They’re probably still alive and still free… and frankly I find that much more frightening than a hypothetical terror attack with a small plane.
But, meanwhile - blame general aviation for death caused by airliners, put people out of business, call it acceptable collateral damage, make a lot of noise - and hope no one notices that the anthrax mailer has never been caught.
The only things living under the approach and departure paths for Meigs are fish.
See, this is another crap lie Daley tells - oh so concerned that an airplane will go out of control on take off on landing and crash into something. Ain’t gonna happen.
Why? Because the airport IS stuck out on the lake, away from everything else, and, as I’ve said, the flights are over the water. When flying into or out of Meigs there’s nothing in front of you but water. As Newton taught us centuries ago, objects in motion tend to travel on a straight line. Even if an airplane DID go out of control on take off or landing it would go in the lake.
In fact, airplanes HAVE crashed on both take off/landing at Meigs in the past, so this isn’t just theorectical - they DO land in the water, not in the park.
The only building at any risk at all would be the Adler Planetarium. It’s a substantial building constructed of granite. A plane might break some windows (and losing the “prism glass” windows would be a shame) but nothing that flies out of Meigs is big enough to destroy it.
Actually, they were all allowed to fly out. The one plane that did not leave with the rest was owned by a St. Louis doctor who had to get back to his patients by Tuesday.
Which just illustrates how the repercussions of this extend far beyond Chicago. Think about it, lee… imagine you’re having health problems, you get an appointment with your doctor, and… he has to cancel because some self-important politician 300 miles away has impounded your doctor’s means of transportation.
Said doctor has hired a commercial pilot to fly his plane home… but the weather downtown has been bad this week and it hasn’t been safe to take off from what’s left of Meigs. This is even more of a problem than usual because if something goes wrong there is no runway to return to.
Which is the HEART of the pilots’ protest over this. Yes, the city owns the land. They arguably have a right to close the airport. But they do NOT have a right to make the situation dangerous!.
If Daley has followed the rules he would have announced the closing in advance. Everyone would have taken off from a sound runway in advance of the closure - just like the last time he closed Meigs.
Instead, he chews up a runway, strands people in Chicago, and puts them into a situation where they may have to land in Grant Park or on Lake Shore Drive instead of at an airport, should something go wrong and they must make an immediate landing. Sure, they could try to turn back to the taxiway they took off from - but it’s shorter and narrower, and if they err they could nick one of those nice, big piles of rubble and flip over
But, of course, the lives and safety of pilots don’t matter to King Daley.
Do you understand at least that part of it, lee? By doing this in the manner in which he did he put other peoples’ safety at risk. Regardless of whether he has a legal right to the land (and he does, I do concede that) it doesn’t give him the right to jeopardize or put other people at risk.
Where was the flight instructor at the time? Why wasn’t the kid under his direct supervision? Was he busy fighting a fire? Delivering a baby? Performing CPR? Jacking off?
The instructor fucked up, there’s no getting around that fact. You can acknowledge it and we can move on, or you can keep it on the table as an example of why we shouldn’t trust the fox when she tells us the chicken coop is secure.
If I’m wrong about this, refute me directly. Show how construction materials used in 1917 were lighter and stronger than those in use today. Show biplanes flew farther and faster using less fuel than contemporary light aircraft. Show how a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamic principles resulted in airplanes more agile and maneuverable than our own.
A light plane is capable of inflicting significant damage in the hands of someone more imaginative than yourself - that is the relevant fact. Your remark was a half-assed attempt at liar’s sophistry (I don’t know much but I’ll wager you know even less) which reinforces the perception that the private aviation community is being fundamentally dishonest in its assessment of the public risk.
No, the irony is that people claiming to be “more security conscious than the general public” can have a plane taken away from them by a child.