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

Great Debates
21

[nitpick]Johnny…pssstt!… the minimum altitude under those conditions is 1,000, not 1,500[/nitpick]

Agreed. It doesn’t. It only annoys the honest people.

Or force him to use a female loan officer. :slight_smile: Seriously - Mohammed Atta looked into buying a cropduster and, while he demanded to speak to a male loan, a female one was the only one provided. Well, apparently she was suspicious of him somewhat (“what does this guy need an AgCat for?”) but having to deal with a woman in a business matter apparently cause him major mental discombobulations.

[devil’s advocate]Johnny, that “useful load” is the legal limit, not the true physical limit. You COULD load more than that weight into a C172 and, properly balanced, still fly the plane. How far over can you go before you exceed the wing+engine’s capacity to generate lift? I don’t know, it’s not something I’ve tried. But people HAVE overloaded Cessnas by 200-300 lbs and gotten them off the ground.[/devil’s advocate] That said - there is a definite limit to the amount of weight a small airplane can lift, and it’s imposed by physics, not the laws of humanity.

And some nasty wind currents - walking along Jackson Boulevard in Chicago I’ve been literally blown off my feet by wind. Given that the wings of even a small plane are about 30 feet wide, that doesn’t leave a heck of a lot of clearance when flying in the “glass and granite canyons”. A strong gust - and we get lots - could fling you into a building - but it may not be the building you want to hit.

The latest estimate I’ve heard (I believe it was AOPA’s) was that general aviation employs 1.3 million Americans. If you shut down GA, you un-employ a lot of people even if that estimate is on the high side. Not to mention the other inconveniences. If you ban GA (I’m assuming cargo will NOT be cut off - it’s too valuable) you lose the following services, at least in their present form:

  • air transport of rural people to medical centers for treatment
  • transport of organs for transplantation
  • air-based search-and-rescue services
  • traffic and other reporting
  • use of helicoptors in construction projects
  • all civilian flight training
  • banner towing
  • crop dusting
  • isolation of many island populations where ferries have been discontinued, which in particular means the entire Hawaiian islands but others would be affected as well
  • isolation of many Alaskan communities that are not served by roads, requiring new highway construction or a return to dogsleds (only effective in winter)
  • transport to remote worksites, such as off-shore oil rigs

Gosh, that’s just off the top of my head - I’m sure there’s more.

In particular, the end of civilian flight training poses a serious problem - airline pilots MUST retire at 60. The military is training fewer pilots. At present, only 40% of airline pilots have ever been in the military. Most of that 40% will be retiring in the next 10-15 years. Of those, a certain number were not taught to fly in the military but learned on the GI bill. Heck my flight instructor HAD a pilot’s license when he joined the Air Force but was never used as a pilot - he spent his tour of duty as a mechanic. We can NOT rely on the military to train even enough pilots for the airlines. Where will the new pilots come from if there is no training?

Naturally, alternatives WILL be developed - but only AFTER the crisis becomes apparent. This will be a mess. Admittedly, it’s a very extreme state of affairs and not likely to actually happen, but GA is NOT just rich playboys indulging their selfish desire with more money than sense. It is an important part of modern life.

22

Of course, but the problem isn’t the authorization for the go around, it’s the go around itself. Those big turbofans take a few seconds to spool up. Below a certain altitude, there simply won’t be enough height for a go around. Also, what if this stunt was pulled on the rollout or takeoff roll?

The intersection takeoff was only an example. There are many, many, ways to find yourself holding short of a landing aircraft. Or a departing one, for that matter.

Very true, a 747 would likely run through a 172 like it was tissue paper.

But how would a 717, Saab 340, ATR, CRJ, Jetstream, etc. handle hitting a 172?

How would a 747 handle hitting a Caravan or PC-12 that pulled out in front of them? What if they had 1500lbs of explosives on board?

23

New York has been under a burnt orange terror threat color since 9-11 and recently the phalanx of blackhawk helicopters and jets have returned, along with some stringent restrictions:[ul]
[li]Travel limited in 30 mile rings from LGA, JFK and NWK[/li][li]Must file a flight plan[/li][li]Be assigned a unique beacon code (no more 1200)[/li][li]Talk to ATC[/li][/ul]
Else on emergency frequencies you’ll hear, “This is the Department of Homeland Security. You need to identify yourself.”

Fines over $1000.

Unaware Recreational Pilots Regularly Intercepted

24

And they’re using unarmed helicoptors?

At least they’re using helicoptors.

See, one of the problems is that our military is set up to confront modern military forces - which civilian planes are not. There were several embarassing instances where fighter jets could not fly slow enough to intercept the smallest planes, which are also the ones most likely to bust this sort of airspace. Helicoptors, as we know, can fly as slow as any airplane.

Of course, no one wants the military to fire on civilians, but if the interceptors are unarmed HOW are they going to stop a serious terrorist? See, they’re still basing the rules on the idea the Bad Guys are going to follow the rules. “Ohmigosh - I’ve been sooooo intercepted! I better cancel my suicide mission now”

This is stupid.

It doesn’t do anything to make people safer. Maybe imposing fines will make up for Bush’s tax cuts, but other than that, it does nothing to improve safety. It does restrict the free movement of innocent, supposedly free civilians. This is a losing proposition - no increase of safety + high costs + a loss of civil rights.

From the article:

OK, here’s the another problem - the system doesn’t have the capacity to handle the new requirements How are you going to fix this? Ideas, please.

25

Consult the accident record for plane vs. plane of similar size and weight for the answer to your first question. Naturally, as the planes approach comparable size the contest will become more equal and damage will occur to both parties.

As for the 1500 lbs of explosives… >kaboom<

So perhaps we should impose some sort of rule on airplanes that can hoist that much weight - but C150’s, C172’s, and PA-28’s - a large portion of the small plane fleet - can’t lift that much cargo in addition to fuel, pilot, etc.

Of course, those 4-seat GA planes carry 50 gallons of highly flammable liquid. Hmm… perhaps we should forbid the carriage of flammable liqui – oh, wait a minute, that would make the airplanes useless, wouldn’t it?

26

Broom - They’re Black Hawk Helicopters presumably piloted by military pilots (accompanied by a homeland security spook) so it’s pretty much certain they are armed.

There are jets over Manhattan too. <rainman>Definitely armed. Definitely.</rainman>

27

No, the helicopters aren’t armed. Not even all military helicopters are armed. A friend of mine flew a Black Hawk in the 101st Airborne during Gulf War 1. Her helicopter was not armed. (Of course the pilots had sidearms and the troops had their weapons – but the helicopter was not armed.)

As to the OP, Joey G points out that there are some things you can’t defend against. But as I implied, that situation is not unique to airplanes. Look at it this way: People drive cars even though tens of thousands of people are killed or injured in them every year. The benefit is worth the risk. You have to look at the risk/benefit ratio. The risks of light aircraft flying over our cities is very, very small, so the benefits are also very small. The costs – in the loss of businesses, in the loss of jobs, in the loss of personal freedom (which is, after all, what we’re fighting for) – are rather high. Of course there is always the “But if it saves even a single life…” argument (which, thankfully, no one has brought up in here but it underlies many restrictions on our freedoms). If we make laws on that standard, then we should ban cars because children are killed in them. We should ban trucks because they’ve been used as terror weapons. We should ban bars because people drink in them and have to drive home, thus there are dangerous drunken drivers on the roads. We should ban firearms because they may be misused. But of course the benefits of such laws would be small, while the cost to our freedom – tha thing that defines Americans – is great.

Can a light aircraft be used as a terror weapon? Yes. But they are really not suited for it. Cars, trucks, people with explosives strapped to them, etc. are a far greater risk.

28

Please read the link - it definitely states the helicoptors are unarmed

Are you sure? Actually, a military jet does not need to be armed to destroy a small plane - nor is ramming required. At high speeds their wake is turbulent enough to cause complete loss of control or destruction of a small airplane. There have been a few instances in the accident record.

Which brings me to another point I’d like to make - MANY of the proposed scenarios for “terrorist attack” with airplanes have already occured in the form of accidents. Of course, a “delibrate” is worse than an “accident” because of the element of malicious intent - but seriously, when it comes to the physical consequences of some of these propose situations we already have experienced the after-effects and have mechanisms to deal with them to one degree or another.

What if an airplane hits a building? The Empire State building got rammed by a bomber during WWII and it’s still standing. I’m sure it wasn’t the first. What made the WTC attacks so awful was the size of the planes used, and the fact that it was a delibrate action.

What if a small plane blocks a runway? - check the accident database.

What if a small plane’s fuel supply detonates? - check the accident database for in-flight fires.

What happens if a crop-duster sprays stuff on people? - check the accident record (it has happened in the past).

No one completely denies a small plane can do damage - but it can’t do much damage short of delivering a small, compact but very powerful bomb like a suitcase nuke (which could be delivered by shopping cart, too).

Certainly, when you move up to larger and heavier planes the potential damage becomes much greater - in which case more stringent restrictions might be reasonable. But lumping a Cessna 150 in with a privately owned Boeing 747 is ridiculous.

So… possible damages are not entirely theoretical but can be based in past experience with accidents. My reading of it is that past experience says that small civilian planes can only cause so much damage, and compared to things like truck bombs they are extremely inefficient at delivering mayhem. I think there are far greater risks out there that are being neglected due to overmuch focus on aviation.

I don’t expect the situation to change, however, unless we have a mass-casualty attack from some other source than large passenger airplanes.

29

It would get squashed, and the 744 in question would maybe notice it. Or not.

Really? I have yet to meet a publisher who would balk at that sort of sensationalism.
In the literary world you can make anything believable, so long as the details seem right, and you don’t explain the stpry too fast.
A certain food monster here just submited a story to a large publishing house that if summarised quickly enough, would sound far more outlandish than a mere Sept 11th. However, I was actually told by my literary agent that there were too many “mundane realities” in the original version, that the reader would have a hard time believing major events were occuring etc… So some focus was altered…Long story short, they will publish anything, if not always paying nicely for it though, [:(]

30

It would get squashed, and the 744 in question would maybe notice it. Or not.

Really? I have yet to meet a publisher who would balk at that sort of sensationalism.
In the literary world you can make anything believable, so long as the details seem right, and you don’t explain the stpry too fast.
A certain food monster here just submited a story to a large publishing house that if summarised quickly enough, would sound far more outlandish than a mere Sept 11th. However, I was actually told by my literary agent that there were too many “mundane realities” in the original version, that the reader would have a hard time believing major events were occuring etc… So some focus was altered…Long story short, they will publish anything, if not always paying nicely for it though, [:(]

31

Aw, c’mon! This hasn’t even reached two pages!

Is there no one out there who wants to kick this around some more?

No new twists, no arguments, no…

>sigh<… Oh, well

32

OK, here’s a few more related questions:

What, if any, restrictions on small planes are reasonable?

What, if any, restrictiosn on pilots are reasonable?

(Me, I think it’s the pilots that are actually the potentially dangerous parts - without a people planes generally sit in one place rather than wandering off by themselves to cause random havoc)

33

Broomstick: Do you get AOPA ePilot? There are a couple of articles about AOPA’s opposition to the TSA’s self-appointed role as accuser, prosecuter, judge, jury, “executioner” and court of appeals.

34

<snipped>

I was using ANFO as an example. I really don’t know what the weight restrictions are for light planes. Still 400 or 500 pounds of ANFO will do damage.

At the same time that does not mean that ANFO is the only choice. I meantioned ANFO because it is fairly easy to make and creates a big boom.

There are some other explosives out there that carry a much bigger punch.

Also note, I do not want flights to be restricted unless there is a valid reason. If the government thinks there is a valid reason I will accept it for a short while. I do not believe there was ever a flight ban before 9-11.

After 9-11 banning flights had some weight. It seems to me that some of these bans may be justified at this time.

Slee
(Hope you get to fly soon)

35

Sure there were. You just didn’t hear much about them.

It has been quite routine for decades for there to be temporary flight bans around spaceship launches - all the way back to the Mecury program, mostly for safety reasons. That’s just one example.

Certainly, there had never been a complete shut down of the airspace over the US before 9/11.

The problem is the NUMBER and SCOPE of restrictions since 9/11 (at least, that’s the pilot’s perspective) There is also another issue about the amount of warning a pilot is given, but that’s outside the scope of the this thread and I don’t want to delve into that particular can of worms here.

And there’s the problem of just what, if anything “the government thinks”. The government is not a singular entity but a collection of people. Some of those people are pilots themselves and promoters of aviation. Others honestly feel that no one but the airlines and the military have any business flying. Just because a gaggle of people decide something should be done doesn’t mean it actually should be done.

Personally, although I think some restrictions are necessary, I also feel MOST of those imposed 9/11 are either unnecessary or completely useless. The current Chicago TFR being Exhibit A at this time.

36

Well, broomstick if you are looking for some unreasonable restrictions I submit the new TSA “security threat means I can take your license” rule.

The fact that 9/11 used airliners means that we have been subject to an extraordinary amount of scrutiny, but I think that the TSA will ALWAYS consider pilots as the POTENTIAL enemy, no matter how much screening is done. The 9/11 hijackers used airplanes as weapons; therefore we are forever doomed to fight the last battle: pilots are potential suspects; you can trust NO ONE!

The fact that the hijackers did not have criminal records and took items through security that were legal at the time doesn’t matter: make the pilot’s lives more difficult!!

The TFR over Chicago is just like the extra FBI background check I went through: no one really expects to find anything, but it sure looks like we’re doing something! And dammit, doing something is what it’s all about!

Vote restrictive!!! (Not)

37

Can we restrict politicians as a security measure? See Pit thread which I can’t link to right now: Daley Attacks Meigs

38

Which is precisely why the TSA should be held in check. When the TSA can revoke a license without saying why they are revoking it other than they “think” someone “might” be a risk, and when the accused has no recourse by to appeal to the TSA, then they are infringing on our right of due process. One of the reasons the Colonists fought the American War of Independence was to stop government agencies from punishing people without a fair trial.

As pilot141 points out, we can’t protect ourselves against everything. If we could, then our prisons would be empty. (Or they might be full. Why not arrest everyone because they might do something wrong?) Should we rid ourselves of this pesky “due process”? While we’re at it, why not have our lawmakers draft a simple Ammendment: “Ammendment XXVIII. The Bill of Rights is hereby revoked.”?

Anything can be called “reasonable”, but it will not be at all reasonable to the people it affects. It’s a slippery slope. Rights are not taken away all at once; they are nibbled away bit by bit. It doesn’t matter to non-pilots if people can’t fly over their cities. They may even like the restriction. Who cares about pilots’ rights? “I’m not a pilot. What do I care?” Suppose the government, in the name of “security”, requires everyone to carry a national ID card? “I don’t have anything to fear. I’m a law-abiding citizen. Only people with something to hide need to worry.” And suppose someone with a national ID card travels to another state and commits a heinous crime? Remember that guy a few years ago who travelled to California from Washington and shot up a Jewish school? If only we had national ID cards and checkpoints! He could have been stopped! His guns could have been discovered. Think of the children who would still be alive!

Now, I’m not paranoid enough to believe that restricting flights over cities will result in a nationwide ban on general aviation. (That would never happen.) And I’m not paranoid enough to believe that the Department of Homeland Security would issue national ID cards, nor attempt to restrict people’s movements. But it could happen. If it could happen, even if the possibility is so remote as to be insignificant, then by the logic of people who want to close airspace, then it should happen.

Should we allow “reasonable” restrictions until we can’t wiggle our toes? Where is the line drawn? Should we make laws based on fear? Or should our laws be made logically? Do we want a free society? Or do we want to be put into straight jackets “for our own good”?

39

Well, first, I knew about the ban around space launches. Heck, I watched a shuttle launch. It was pretty damned neat. I was refering to the general ban that happened after 9-11.

Second, I admit that I don’t know the scope of all the bans. I’d bet that during some events, like the Superbowl, the flight patterns are changed because the Superbowl would be a big target. I’d also bet that this happened before 9-11.

Third, when I say ‘the government’ I mean all those hard working, and generally smart, people who work for the government and asess the risks involved. I know a little bit about this because my Dad was for a long time one of those people. My Dad ran the Nuclear Reactor Saftey Division at Sandia Labs for a bit. (A bit being 18 years)My Dad came home one night and handed me a set of 8x10’s of an F-4 Phantom running into a wall at 480 MPH. They ran the F-4 into a containment wall because there was a chance someone would either accidentally or purposely hit a nuclear power plant with a plane. So they set out to test the wall. If you want to see the footage go to http://www.nci.org/02NCI/03/Outline-presentation_030502.htm [#1]. These experts in the government study and know the risks. Are they all good people? I don’t know but I’d bet most of them are.

Last, I want people to be as free as possible. At the same time we are at war and during war we need to take more precautions than we usually do. It sucks but that doesn’t mean it isn’t prudent.

Slee

#1. Note, on that site they say “Video clearly showing 6-foot displacement of wall on cushion of air can be viewed on NCI website.” I asked my Dad about this and he said 3 things. A)It wasn’t on a cushion of air. Try balancing a couple thousand pound wall on a cushion of air. Ain’t gonna happen . B) Second, the site where they ran the test did not have the equipment to float a massive wall on a cushion of air. I have been to the test site and it is in the middle of nowhere. The only equipment is a set of railroad tracks. C)They, my Dad and his team, got all the data they needed and interpolated the rest. The wall moved because it didn’t have a foundation. They just built it on top of the ground.

Slee

40

There is a small difference between an F-4 Phantom II that weighs 58,000 pounds and flying at 480 mph, and a Cessna 172 that weighs 2,400 pounds travelling at 120 mph.

Reminds me of Harlan Ellison’s “Repent, Harlequin,” said the Ticktock Man. “After all, there was a war on. But isn’t there always?” :stuck_out_tongue: