Should private aircraft be restricted in the name of "security"?

Great Debates
1

There is a thread in The Pit that started out as a rant against an individual in the OP’s life, morphed into personal attacks, and finally moved into a discussion about putting restrictions on General Aviation aircraft because they “might” be used as terror weapons. I think that that issue deserves its own thread, so I’ve copied my comments here (modified so it will make more sense to the people who are reading it for the first time). As you can guess, I am opposed to more restrictions on light aircraft. I do not believe that they are suited to being used as terror weapons. Here is my case:

There are basically two terrorist weapons, bombs and toxins. A rental truck makes much more sense as a bomb than a Cessna or a Piper. Rental trucks have been used as terror weapons in the United States – in New York, and in Oklahoma. GA aircraft have not been used as terror weapons (except for the two – unsuccessful – instances: A teenaged boy who only managed to kill himself and cause some minor damage to a building, and a suicidal pilot who tried to hit the White House a few years ago and missed). A poster wrote: “My assumption about commercial aviation is that that universe is controllable.” The airliners that were used on 09/11/2001 were under positive control. They were on IFR flight plans and had to maintain radio contact with controllers and follow their instructions. To even leave the ground they needed to be dispatched. The terrorists had to pass though security checkpoints. Yes, commercial aviation is under the control of many agencies and people. And still they were used as terror weapons. So it makes absolutely no sense to restrict GA aircraft which are really unsuited to being made into flying bombs capable of killing thousands, until you’ve kept the airplanes that have been used as terror weapons from getting off of the ground, and the trucks that have been used as terror weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists. A commercial jet or an explosives-filled truck makes a dandy guided missile; a light aircraft does not.

But what about toxins? As the OP pointed out, the Japanese terrorists used Baggies to carry their nerve agents. You really need to be fairly close to your target to be effective. Have you ever watched a cropduster? They don’t fly 500 feet over the fields to spray them; they get right down on the deck. They have to get to within a few feet of the crop in order for the chemicals to be effective. If they fly higher, the chemicals are dispersed in the air and are not effective. How is a light plane going to dust a city like that, when you have 40- 50- 100-storey buildings, light standards, power lines, and so forth in the way? You just can’t get low enough in a GA aircraft to “cropdust” effectively. But the main – and unfounded – fear the public have is that GA aircraft will be used as guided missiles. And it has been demonstrated that they are ineffective for such a use.

I have a lot of experience riding motorcycles. Being in L.A., I have a lot of experience getting through stopped traffic and into and out of tight spaces. Suppose some terrorists get some motorcycles. They fix tanks of toxins to them and either rig a sprayer attachment or have a confederate handle a hose like an exterminator. You have a half-dozen of these guys ride around Manhattan or someplace spraying as many people on the street as they can. I think for spreading toxins that this would be more effective and less expensive than trying to do it from a thousand feet in the air. So if this happens, what then? Background checks for motorcyclists?

Most people don’t know a thing about airplanes – especially “little airplanes”. To most people they are dangerous contraptions that only a complete idiot would get into. When people don’t understand something, they tend to be afraid of it. If they’re afraid of something, they want to do something about it. Unfortunately they are irrational. They will make rules and then say, “Well, we took care of that!” But then they’re shocked when something bad happens.

A slight tangent. For years residents of a California town were trying to get the local airport closed. It wasn’t their fault if someone built houses next to the airport. It wasn’t their fault if they bought a house next to an airport, knowing that there was an airport there. No, it was the airport’s fault for having been built in a place that decades later would be populated. It was the pilots’ fault for flying someplace where there are houses. Well, along comes the Loma Prieta earthquake. Wanna take a guess where emergency supplies and search-and-rescue teams and relief workers flew into? They were plenty glad to have that airport there then.

So my points are these:
[ul][li]GA aircraft are unsuited for use as “flying bombs”.[/li][li]“Cropdusting” noxious chemicals over a large city would be difficult and/or ineffective.[/li][li]There are easier, cheaper, and less conspicuous means of making terror attacks.[/li][li]People are misguided if they want to do something just for the sake of doing something.[/li][li]People take notice of small aircraft, as has been seen when security personnel flew a light plane around a city doing surveillance. A terrorist wants to be inconspicuous until the fatal moment.[/ul][/li]
Restrictions on GA aircraft would make life difficult for the pilots who fly them, while at the same time doing nothing or as-good-as-nothing to increase the safety of the general population.

2

You aren’t going to get any debate from me. The hobbies that are most important to me and even a part of my identity are shooting and flying. How do you think that makes me feel. Why don’t they go after golf sometime. All that wasted land…

3

I’m sort of waiting for the argumen-- >ahem< – discussion to start… does someone want to take the oposing side?

4

Thanks for not even getting past the OP before misquoting, Johnny. When I said, “My assumption about commercial aviation is that that universe is controllable,” it was clearly in the context of a discussion of post-9/11 realities.

If you want to open a thread arguing that we’re just as vulnerable now as before 9/11 to having commercial jetliners turned into flying bombs, feel free.

5

No, Rufus, it was not clearly in the context of a discussion of post 9-11 realities. I read it as a discussion of using light aircraft as, or for delivering, weapons of mass distruction. While I can understand that people may be more worried about such things due to the current state of affairs, you didn’t mention 9-11 in that post.

6

Okay, here’s what you said on the first page of the Pit thread:

Yes, you mentioned 9/11. But then you say “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that part of the price of protecting ourselves against such an attack might be to keep planes from flying over the downtowns of our largest cities” which doesn’t necessarily have to do with 9/11 – or the anthrax scare that followed, but with terrorist attacks in general.

Tha purpose of this thread is to debate whether it really is “reasonable” to restrict private aircraft in the name of “security”.

7

Hey Johnny - check out broomstick’s post immediately before the one you quoted me from. What was it all about? Terrorists and al-Qaeda and people like that potentially spraying poison in cities. We aren’t talking about a post-9/11 world? Gimme a break.

See you in the original Pit thread, because quite honestly there’s no point in starting a new one.

8

I didn’t start this thread for you, Rufus. This thread is not about 9/11. This thread is whether light aircraft do, or do not, pose a security threat. The fact is that the U.S. has become a target of terrorists. The question is whether A) light aircraft are viable tools for terrorism, and B) should they be restricted. The reson it is here is because the thread in The Pit was a rant about something else entirely until it was hijacked.

Now, you can stay out of the debate if you want. But I am interested to know if you seriously think light aircraft should be restricted. Not only you, but others as well. I’ve stated my case as to why I think they shouldn’t. If others disagree, this is the place for the debate.

9

Well, I’m a pilot and I’ve always been zealous about protecting our flying freedom.

However, let me play devil’s advocate for a minute. There’s a difference between trucks and planes - planes can go places trucks can’t. A plane can hit a crowd of people at a stadium. A plane can hit the dome of the Capitol, or the White House. A plane can ‘dust’ a crowd at a football game with radioactive material. A Cessna Caravan could drop a 1,000 lb bomb filled with nails on center field at the Superbowl.

So… I think we have to be reasonable. I can see short-term restrictions around large outdoor sporting events. I can see air defense zones around major cultural landmarks during high terror alerts. That sort of thing.

Give me a good reason for the restriction, and I can buy into it. But blanket closures of airspace ‘just in case’ would be ridiculous.

10

I am going to play too.

Suppose someone flies into a major controlled field in a GA aircraft, lands, and then delibrately taxis in front of a 747-400 in the flare or on rollout, or during its takeoff roll.

How could this be prevented?

11

I have to agree with Sam Stone on this one.

Also, I can’t see why a small plane couldn’t be loaded with 1000 lbs of ANFO[#1] or something similar and flown into a big building.

At the same time it is possible that someone will come up with a way to use GA aircraft as a weapon effectively. For example, before 9-11 Tom Clancy wrote a novel where a pissed off pilot flew a 747 into the Capitol building. When asked about the 9-11 attacks afterwards Clancy was shocked that a)it had happened and b) that so many people would kill themselves to attack the US:

Note, my point in bring up Clancy is that he makes his living thinking about and writing about possible attacks. From what I understand Clancy is pretty knowledgeable in all matters military. (If I am wrong please let me know)

So, while we may not see credible threat from GA aircraft that does not mean that the threat does not exist. Reasonable caution is called for during times like these.

Slee

#1. I googled on ANFO[#2] and the OKC bombings. The numbers I found ran from 1000 lbs to 6000 lbs of ANFO being used in the attack. A small plane hitting a building with 1000 lbs of ANFO could do some serious damage.

#2. My understanding is that ANFO is pretty easy to make.

12

While I’m not in favour of restricting GA aircraft, aside from reasonable temporary limitations such as over sporting events, etc, as already noted, I’m not sold on this argument.

I know a little bit about cropdusting. That is to say, I know a bit about the application of pesticides/herbicides. The reason cropdusters fly so low is because when you’re applying a pesticide/herbicide you want to lay on a very specific dosage in a very specific location. Flying at any altitude would result in hitting your neighbour’s field instead of your own, and the dosage wouldn’t be controllable. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t effectively disperse, say, VX, from a cropduster. (I don’t know if you could - all I know about the properties of VX I learned from Nick Cage. :D) What I can tell you for sure is that you couldn’t pay me any amount of money to stand under the path of a cropduster at 300’ spraying, say, Decis, even if it wouldn’t be very effective at killing grasshoppers at that height. I would think that any chemical agent that is water soluble and dangerous at low dosages could be effectively dispersed by a cropduster. Anyways, those things are lots nimble enough to fly down a street at 30’ between the skyscrapers.

13

While I’m not in favour of restricting GA aircraft, aside from reasonable temporary limitations such as over sporting events, etc, as already noted, I’m not sold on this argument.

I know a little bit about cropdusting. That is to say, I know a bit about the application of pesticides/herbicides. The reason cropdusters fly so low is because when you’re applying a pesticide/herbicide you want to lay on a very specific dosage in a very specific location. Flying at any altitude would result in hitting your neighbour’s field instead of your own, and the dosage wouldn’t be controllable. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t effectively disperse, say, VX, from a cropduster. (I don’t know if you could - all I know about the properties of VX I learned from Nick Cage. :D) What I can tell you for sure is that you couldn’t pay me any amount of money to stand under the path of a cropduster at 300’ spraying, say, Decis, even if it wouldn’t be very effective at killing grasshoppers at that height. I would think that any chemical agent that is water soluble and dangerous at low dosages could be effectively dispersed by a cropduster. Anyways, those things are lots nimble enough to fly down a street at 30’ between the skyscrapers.

14

While I’m not in favour of restricting GA aircraft, aside from reasonable temporary limitations such as over sporting events, etc, as already noted, I’m not sold on this argument.

I know a little bit about cropdusting. That is to say, I know a bit about the application of pesticides/herbicides. The reason cropdusters fly so low is because when you’re applying a pesticide/herbicide you want to lay on a very specific dosage in a very specific location. Flying at any altitude would result in hitting your neighbour’s field instead of your own, and the dosage wouldn’t be controllable. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t effectively disperse, say, VX, from a cropduster. (I don’t know if you could - all I know about the properties of VX I learned from Nick Cage. :D) What I can tell you for sure is that you couldn’t pay me any amount of money to stand under the path of a cropduster at 300’ spraying, say, Decis, even if it wouldn’t be very effective at killing grasshoppers at that height. I would think that any chemical agent that is water soluble and dangerous at low dosages could be effectively dispersed by a cropduster. Anyways, those things are lots nimble enough to fly down a street at 30’ between the skyscrapers.

15

While I’m not in favour of restricting GA aircraft, aside from reasonable temporary limitations such as over sporting events, etc, as already noted, I’m not sold on this argument.

I know a little bit about cropdusting. That is to say, I know a bit about the application of pesticides/herbicides. The reason cropdusters fly so low is because when you’re applying a pesticide/herbicide you want to lay on a very specific dosage in a very specific location. Flying at any altitude would result in hitting your neighbour’s field instead of your own, and the dosage wouldn’t be controllable. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t effectively disperse, say, VX, from a cropduster. (I don’t know if you could - all I know about the properties of VX I learned from Nick Cage. :D) What I can tell you for sure is that you couldn’t pay me any amount of money to stand under the path of a cropduster at 300’ spraying, say, Decis, even if it wouldn’t be very effective at killing grasshoppers at that height. I would think that any chemical agent that is water soluble and dangerous at low dosages could be effectively dispersed by a cropduster. Anyways, those things are lots nimble enough to fly down a street at 30’ between the skyscrapers.

16

I think the question here is what is reasonable.

For decades there have been restrictions on where aircraft could go, many written to protect the public on the ground. For instance, we don’t let epileptics fly airplanes - it’s not fair to the people the airplane might fall on. Flights over the Grand Canyon started being regulated after some nasty mid-airs from folks sightseeing, some involving commercial passenger jets deviating from course to show the folks on board the sights. And Meigs in Chicago has a right-hand traffic pattern (opposite the usual) so that if a plane crashes it’s much more likely to fall into the water than onto people in Grant Park or the nearby museum campus. These are all restrictions/regulations that have a valid safety concern in them, and they strike me as being reasonable, or at least defensible.

Now, as for the recent Chicago TFR - if Mayor Dumb-Dumb has said something like “Hey, we had thousands, somewhere between 4 and 10 thousand, demonstrators in our downtown area two nights in a row, demonstrations all day, demonstrations shutting down main roads at night, we’re on orange alert which has a lot of people on edge, we have news coptors all over the place… I’d really like to have a temporary flight restriction put over downtown because the situation is so volitile I’m concerned that a low-flying plane might set someone person off into a panic, or too many gawkers might cause an accident, or someone might try to instigate trouble.” — now THAT would have been something grounded in genuine safety concerns, that would be a reasonable request (perhaps one reasonable to grant) and honest. But no - he wants a blanket ban over the entire city for “just in case” and to make him feel important - at least as important as DC or NYC or “Mickey and Minnie”. What’s in effect is the bone thrown to the dog to shut him up.

Of course, as a pilot, I’m not happy to be told “No, you can’t go there”. As a responsible adult, however, I understand the necessity and reasoning behind most of the rules we fly under. I was totally supportive of shutting down the US airspace on 9/11 - it was the only logical reaction to the attack. I wasn’t happy about it - I wasn’t happy about anything connected to the attacks that day - but I fully supported it. But when there were a few voices saying we shut down everything but the military and passenger airlines permanently - no, that was NOT reasonable.

So what is a reasonable restriction?

New Jersey has asked for ALL airplanes on the ground longer than 24 hours in their state to be “double-locked” by this Friday. By their definitions, our cars are “double-locked”, meaning you need a key to get in the door and a key to start it. Owners of airplanes that do not have door locks (some airplanes don’t even have doors, remember) might have to store them in a hangar or use a prop-lock or other secondary lock. Is this reaonable? Hmm… well, yeah, I think that argument can be made. Given that an airplane IS potentially dangerous in the wrong hands it seems reasonable to ask airplane owners to take minimal efforts to prevent theft. Heck, I don’t take my freakin’ bicycle out of the house without a chain and lock.

But some of the security check requirements states have attempted to pass? The one Michigan did pass? Everybody gets state and federal background checks, fingerprinted, and so forth? What, exactly, does that do? Well, for starters, flight schools near the Michigan border in Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Ontario, Canada have seen a sudden jump in business. The head of the Michigan Department of Transportation now gets to decide who can have flight training and who can’t, based not on ability but on whether or not he/she likes their past. As I said - someone with a DUI convinction can’t get flight training in Michigan anymore - meaning if Dubya wants to get current again he’s deemed unfit to fly in Michigan. OK, is it just me, or is it pretty weird when the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is defined as a security risk by Michigan bureaucrats? And if he IS that unsuitable - why is he President? (that’s a rhetorical question - I know why he’s president, he won a lawsuit). And what about the people who already HAVE recieved flight training and are now based in Michigan? How can you justify requiring background checks of students but not of established pilots? (not that I want that, either). And if you resolved that issue, what about transient pilots from out of state, or even out of country?

Not to mention the often-ignored fact that the 9/11 hijackers had no criminal records. In other words, a Michigan-style background check, for all the money and inconvenience, would not have deemed the 9/11 hijackers as a security risk. In other words, it’s useless for its stated purpose.

THAT doesn’t seem to make logical sense to me. It looks like another “feel good” measure so the bureaucrats can say “Look! We did something!” Yeah, they annoyed a lot of people and spent a lot of money but did jack for the actual problem.

17

Sam Stone: But what is “reasonable”? As you know, airplanes must maintain at least 1,500 feet above congested areas and open-air assemblies. There is a TFR over Disneyland that says aircraft must now maintain 3,000 feet. The excuse is that they’re afraid of terrorism. Exactly how does doubling the minimum altitude stop someone from doing anything? It doesn’t. The only way you’re going to stop a determined terrorist is to shoot him down. He’s not going to say, “Damn! They doubled the minimum altitude! I’ll have to give up.” or “Huh? They closed the airspace entirely? Well, I guess I’d better stay home.” Granted, immediately after 9/11 closing down the airspace was a quick way to see if anyone was not landing as ordered and might have been a threat. But to shut it down for weeks? (Not everywhere, but near major cities.) There was no reason for that. IIRC, there was some dialog like this: “Oh, we’d like to open the airspace, but another agency is ordering it.” The other agency says, “No, we didn’t say the airspace couldn’t be re-opened. That’s the other agency.” If I had wanted to fly during the closure, I could have. I’d be arrested. But if I were on a suicide mission, it wouldn’t matter if the airspace was “closed” or not.

Joey G: If a Cessna were taxiing toward the active runway without authorization (and yes, you need authorization at controlled fields) a landing jet would be advised to go around.

sleestak: Most GA aircraft are not able to carry 1,000 pounds. A Cessna 172, one of the most common GA aircraft around, has a useful load of 974 pounds. You have to subtract the weight of the pilot and of the fuel. And again, telling a terrorist he isn’t allowed to fly over, say, a stadium is not going to keep him from doing it.

Gorsnak: An aircraft might be nimble enough to fly between skyscrapers. I know I could do it in a Robinson, for example. But I doubt most pilots would be able to fly around at 30 feet in a big city. It’s probably easy on Flight Simulator, but in the real world there are other obstructions than buildings.

But what is the threat? In the case of 9/11 there were terrorists who had trained for years to be able to handle the aircraft. But most terrorists are not pilots and do not have access to the necessary training. Who is more likely to attempt an attack; a highly trained pilot, or some guy with a car bomb. Mohammed Atta & Co. were an exception. As was seen with the teenager who flew a Cessna into a building, a light plane is not going to do a lot of damage. So even if an under-educated fanatic happened to know how to fly and decided to use a GA aircraft in an attack, the attack won’t do much.

Shutting down airspace causes economic hardships. Businesses have gone out of business because of the 9/11 closure. People worked for years to build their businesses, and they go bankrupt because of a knee-jerk reaction. States are always trying to bring in revenue. As Broomstick said, when Michigan instituted background checks pilots took their business elsewhere. Less money for Michigan!

Now I don’t really care if I can’t get below 3,000 feet over Disneyland. But the fact is that the TFR is not a protection against anything. But taking it to an extreme, what happens if the Administration bans personal flying in the U.S.? Hundreds or thousands of businesses would cease to exist. Not just FBOs, either. Such a closure would do more harm than good. But what if it did happen. As I’ve said, trucks make more effective weapons. Maybe there would be a restriction that says only commercial operators can use trucks? Maybe people would have to get permits if they wanted to leave their state or city? I know this is hyperbole and it’s not going to happen. There will not be a ban on personal flying in the U.S. and we won’t all have to have internal passports and visas. But the same logic that closes airspace has the potential to do other things.

So I still maintain that restrictions on GA aircraft would make life difficult for the pilots who fly them, while at the same time doing nothing or as-good-as-nothing to increase the safety of the general population. It’s “feel good” legislation whose only real effect is to boost the egos of the people who make it.

18

Assuming he does have a taxi clearance. He is told to taxi and hold short of the active runway. Now, since he is a GA aircraft, he may have been given an intersection takeoff to boot. So there he is, holding short of the runway in use, with a 747-400 on short final. I am sure everyone in here has had to hold short of the active runway while waiting for traffic to land. You sit there and twiddle your thumbs while watching the airliner grow larger in the side window. Now, just as the 747 is in his flare or during his rollout, you jab the throttle and taxi right in front of him.

There is no way for him to go around. The GA pilot has made everything go from perfectly normal to one of the worst aviation disasters in history in less than a second.

How can this be prevented?

19

How would you stop another Timothy McVey?

20

Actually, I think this is a bit of non-issue. Let me explain.

First of all – as I’m sure all we pilots know - the big jet doesn’t have to wait for ATC to authorize a go-around, the pilot can do this on his own initiative.

Second - intersection take-offs may be given, but seldom are in my experience (I’ve been give exactly one in eight years). When they are given, they are given when this will clearly not be a traffic issue, and the situation is very closely watched. If the small plane pilot tarries too long either ATC or the big plane pilot will initiate a go-around.

Third - I will grant the hold-short scenario is a possibility.

BUT - if a 747 hits a C172 it is unlikely this will cause a problem for the big jet. Big jets HAVE run into (run through would be more accurate) small planes by accident. (I spend way to much time morbidly reading about aviation accidents) As a general rule, the big guy has minimal damage, if any, and the little guy is destroyed and those aboard is maimed or killed. In some instances, passengers in the big jet have not even felt a bump. It’s like a frieght train driving through a sub-compact car, but an even more extreme difference in size/weight/speed. So past experience in the form of accidents demonstrates this is the most likely outcome.

Good question - but in the end, this is not a serious threat to the general public.