Light aircraft "could be bombs" [Archive]

SNS3Guppy

23rd Jun 2008, 16:48

This is where the big disconnect comes in understanding the true threat. Pilots nearly universally laugh at the idea of using light airplanes for a terrorist action. A light airplane has little chance of doing much damage, most say. However, those who believe this really do miss the big picture.

A light airplane gets used for a terrorist function. A few people die. A little damage is done. Fair enough.

However...overnight your flight schools shut down, and don't reopen. (in the US, after 09/11, a third of the flight schools in the country went out of business). General aviation comes to a near standstill. You can't even visit your own airplane again without a pass, and often an escort. You're fingerprinted a dozen times, the subject of multiple security clearances, and when you do go fly, you're intercepted in your PA-28 by a fighter that is prepared to shoot you down. IFR flight plans required for everything. The costs go up. Screening is in effect at your local airport. Medical flights, freight flights, traffic reporting, you name it...all severely curtailed, delayed, stopped, cancelled...and suddenly you're in the same position as the US.

The amount of damage done in the US following 09/11 was enormous. Not from the damage to the world trade center, though that was tragic. The real damage was the fear, the terror, and the economic impact particularly to general aviation. You see two or three light airplanes in the UK used for such an activity and it won't matter if a single soul is hurt or killed, or if a single pound, euro, or dollar is lost. The psychological damage, the publicity, the outcry will be enough that whatever limited flying you get to do now will be gone and probably won't be back.

The real threat is what comes afterward. For that reason alone, it's something that every single pilot should take very seriously. Very, very seriously. Act and watch accordingly, because it only takes once.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jun 2008, 17:00

Many think in terms of the damage caused by localised targeted delivery. Light aircraft have very limited capability in this regard. The concern arises from the use of light aircraft for more widely targeted delivery.

However, it is vital we balance the right to our freedom as pilots with the risks. Unfortunately the agenda is not as clear cut as you would wish to believe.

Never the less vigiliance is vital and in that respect we all have our part to play.

The press on the other hand would far rather run with an ill thought out report which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the risks involved and the reasons for a degree of concern.

For that we should perhaps be grateful.

RTN11

23rd Jun 2008, 17:00

XX621

23rd Jun 2008, 17:03

....Someone please tell me what's going wrong in this bloody country...?

Sure. The Media.

UL730

23rd Jun 2008, 18:26

In his latest, Lord Carlile highlights the risk of terrorists hijacking executive jets which travel at high-speed across continents.

Although there is said to be no intelligence about this, Lord Carlile said senior police officers had concerns, given the large number of private aircraft and small airfields.

Probably anticipating the growing market in VLJ's and how on earth, banal ACPO inspired programmes such as "Street Wars" are going to script the chase scene.

"London Control - right, right, right - southbound L980 towards Avant. Cessna Mustang - G-BOLX - failing to stop. Request all units deploy with aerial stinger at Kathy"

I would leave the clause "there is said to be no intelligence" - with a plurality of meanings.

With sincere apologies - if any good soul has registered his a/c with the above reg- my will to check SRG's G-INFO has expired

robin

23rd Jun 2008, 18:52

No doubt this Stasi approach will lead to British Transport police doing spot checks on us at airports now.

a) there aren't enough plod/special branch/customs to be present at all the airstrips in the country

b) there aren't enough military a/c to be able to intercept all possible threats by air

Solution - ground GA

Nice one Lord Carlisle - NIMBY God. You are a gift to those who wish to shut down aviation, and, as a supposed Liberal, you should be ashamed of yourself.

And if Mr Opik is listening in, perhaps he could earn his salary and explain to Lord Carlisle he is talking b*ll*cks.

I sincerely hope that AOPA, the GA Alliance and all our representative bodies - including the CAA - will ensure that this half-*rsed piece of rubbish is filed where it deserves to be.

SNS3Guppy

23rd Jun 2008, 19:52

Some of you need to learn that the press and the popular media has never been about reporting the news. It's about selling advertising. Facts and accuracy are not the goal; attracting viewers and readers that will be exposed to advertising is the goal.

The news isn't the news. It's the entertainment business. Keep that in mind.

Daifly

23rd Jun 2008, 20:44

Just for the record, Mr Opik (a PPL/IR besides being a bit of a clown) followed Lord Carlile as MP for Montgomeryshire; so one would hope they have a good working relationship, both being Lib Dems.

As well as flying privately, I working in Business Aviation. I've yet to see Alex Carlile at Farnborough seeing for himself the steps and lengths we go to to ensure that we have the strictest possible security we can. It's not simply a case of a few yellow jackets on the gate, it's a series of steps involving everyone in the organisation, we have direct contact with all sorts of Government agencies for any kind of concerns and I'm, frankly, worried that the Government's Terrorism Tzar doesn't seem to know this.

Just from the fact he's written means he doesn't know it....

Sir George Cayley

23rd Jun 2008, 21:03

It gets worse:ugh:

M'lord Carlisle (not hereditary I note) has also echoed plods request for a 3000 strong unified Border Police Service.

I for one will be visiting Transair and purchasing several white shirts avec epaulettes. Then squeezing 2 x Four Gold Bars onto each sloping shoulder.

That should pull a bit of rank when the Rankers call:ok:

Sir George Cayley

jaycee58

23rd Jun 2008, 22:43

The Telegraph is at it as well:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2182507/British-911-fears-over-private-planes%2C-Government-terror-adviser-warns.html

fireflybob

23rd Jun 2008, 23:23

I sincerely hope that AOPA, the GA Alliance and all our representative bodies - including the CAA - will ensure that this half-*rsed piece of rubbish is filed where it deserves to be.

I could not agree more! People like Lord Carlile have got no idea what they are talking about.

The thought of having to go through the same banal security checks at my local "airfield" when I go and do a bit of private flying as one is subjected to at major "airports" beggars belief.

LH2

24th Jun 2008, 00:16

that well advertised spectre, "liquid explosives"

The funny thing is, the chap who got nicked for that said in his court testimony that yes, he and his mates were trying to kick up a bit of dust at the airport terminal with some home-baked incendiary devices, but that was it. Your friendly government provided all the rest of the entertainment:

From AFP (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gR_18fZwwK85QTD3c1KkPiqxA_sQ)

"We did not want to kill or injure anyone," he told the court Monday.

"Something small enough to cause a large bang, maybe some smoke. Something that would be considered serious and credible, something to generate that mass media attention."

He added: "I never had any intention of murdering anyone or injuring anyone. At no stage did I ever even think of going on an airplane or causing an explosion there."

Why is it that I find it a lot easier to believe this guy than to believe the government? Mind you, I'm old enough to remember when after an IRA bombing the police used to grab any poor Irish-accented bastard and accuse them of all sorts. Got away with that for years, didn't they.

ShyTorque

24th Jun 2008, 08:42

:ugh: These overstated fears mean the terrorist is winning.

The average private car can carry more than most light aircraft. Perhaps we should have checks on every car driver every time someone wants to drive one?

Julian

24th Jun 2008, 09:19

Its nothing new and the report does state..

This has led to some well
thought out local policing plans, involving special branch and other police
offi cers working together and with local communities. There is real cooperation from pilots of all kinds of aircraft and owners/operators of airfields
of all sizes.

150. The business and private aviation sector continues to respond well
to such threat as terrorism presents to them. The operators of airfi elds to
which volume business and general aviation fly are well aware of terrorism
concerns.

But no doubt this detracts from a good story about light aircraft raining down from the sky like Tora Tora Tora so the BBC neglected to include it in their report.

As stated, there is absolutely no intelligence that demonstrates attack using light aircraft, christ they could disguise themselves as a BBC news crew and infiltrate the Commons with news cameras packed full of explosives!!:ugh: But thats just sensationalist :)

J.

Shame there does not appear to be a 'comments' section on the bottom of the BBC page.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

24th Jun 2008, 10:12

There are people on this Planet who can't settle until everything is controlled by what they consider to be the "responsible Few". The terr threat is a gift from Allah for them.

I can't imagine there will be much resistance by the Police for the curtailment or tight control of General and Sport aviation. I remember many years ago at Manch, a group of rozzers (scuffs for you Scousers) being shown round the Tower (I'm not sure if they visited PATCRU as well) and being impressed by the blokes (and blokess) in the Approach room. The visitors were fascinated by the RADAR and the amount of traffic operating outside controlled airspace. They were truly mystified that nobody cared about what the traffic was and what it was doing. I could almost see the mental note taking. Something to do with Police mentality, I believe.

OK, entering into the spirit of fantasy and paranoia; how about, say, a flexwing microlight with a shaped charge IED in the nose? I'm sure any self respecting terr could knock together 100 lb weight of high impulse explosive with some light metal and foam plastic to direct its energy.

soay

24th Jun 2008, 13:12

and foam plastic to direct its energy ....
away from the pilot!

aztruck

24th Jun 2008, 13:25

Dont forget the spectre of a dozen free fall suicide bombers lobbing out of a knackered caravan......or rocket propelled taliban roman candles underslung from footlaunched fan motors....
All ppls to become trained firearms officers as part of the course. problem solved.
Umm.....the last exploding outrage in the USA was ...I believe....an exploding bicycle in Times square?? Maybe I'm mistaken on this, but a fleet of exploding bicyles..especially if fitted with the panniers commonly available without any form of licence....would cause devastation in the average supermarket car park.
If you just want to have a go at folk, you could just nick a van and mow down a load of pedestrians on the pavement. Pick your route and plan the outrage carefully......just a sec.....isnt that what happens at the moment anyway?
Even the USA is not this paranoid.

Flying Binghi

24th Jun 2008, 14:10

Why would osama waste his time with light aircraft - Heck, take 20 litres of petrol to the local night club and burn, baby burn... :hmm:

TheOddOne

24th Jun 2008, 15:09

With sincere apologies - if any good soul has registered his a/c with the above reg- my will to check SRG's G-INFO has expired

G-BOLX used to be on a C172 based at Headcorn. It was well scruffy when I used to hire it 15-odd years ago. It was a sister ship to 'LI and 'LY, which are both still around. I understand that it has now been re-registered as G-EOLX - maybe the paint on the reg had faded and it was cheaper to re-register than re-paint!

This was one of the registrations that slipped through the CAA's 'decency Police' whereby you're not allowed to have obscene or even mildly rude registrations. They should review some of the helicopter reggies I see about (G-PIMP, G-FCKD etc etc)

TheOddOne

IO540

24th Jun 2008, 17:14

IMHO these funny registrations become a bit of a liability, after a few years.

Also I note most of them are very hard to pronounce. I would always go for a custom reg (the cost is peanuts) and my choice would always be picked to roll off the tongue very quickly, without ambiguity. Unfortunately a lot of other people play that game too so the obvious ones have been taken :)

I saw G-BOLX a few years ago.

It's a lot easier to get these (ones which are 'suggestive' to an English speaker) in non English speaking countries.

SNS3Guppy

24th Jun 2008, 19:18

Why would osama waste his time with light aircraft - Heck, take 20 litres of petrol to the local night club and burn, baby burn...

That doesn't carry nearly the effect as using an airplane. The goal isn't to kill or to maim, or even to damage property. Terrorism. That's what it's about.

You haven't seen it happen yet, but you probably will. As I said before, following 09/11, a third of the flight schools in the US went out of business. I was personally assigned to retrieve a heart the evening of the day it happened, and I had to watch the individual who was to receive the heart on the television, crying and telling the public and the media that he would die because the aircraft that was to go get his replacement heart wasn't allowed to fly. That was me, the one who was supposed to make that flight. One of thousands upon thousands of flights that didn't go.

For years after that time, I had to put locks around my propeller every time I walked away from the airplane, keep at least three disabling devices attached at all times, add devices to prevent the aircraft from flying, received frequent visits from the federal bureau of investigation, and had to obtain additional clearances and undergo additional scrutiny. Those of you who come from overseas to do training have some inkling of the hoops through which you must jump...all because a few individuals obtained a few airplanes and did damage.

Today, it doesn't matter how much damage is done. I'm a long time ag pilot, and fire pilot, among other things. In the years following 09/11, the public hysteria over "white dust" being dispensed by ag airplanes lead to multiple groundings of ag aircraft, prompting some to sell their operations and others to go out of business. We were prevented from flying on fires at times, as a result. No ag airplane was ever used for a terrorist act, but the effects remained. Had an ag airplane ever been used, one could safely discount agricultural aviation in the US. Over. Kaput. Done.

Same for several light airplanes being used. The amount of physical damage to be done? Minimal. The amount of psychological and economic damage? Inestimable. Massive, and potentially without end. Blow up a night club...that happens from time to time. Nobody closes all the night clubs. Blow up a truck, nobody is going to park all the trucks. Blow up a ship, there are plenty more ships. Blow up another airplane, and much of the aviation industry may not be able to recover from the fallout. In the general aviation sector this is especially true.

How many of you are instrument rated? Most private pilots are not. Never the less, the matter of requiring all light airplanes to fly under IFR was seriously debated following 09/11. Much as I love VFR flight and personal freedom, I'm not entirely against that, then or now. It's not entirely workable, but the concept was certainly discussed that anything deviating from an IFR plan would be considered a threat, and has been on many occasions in the US in some areas.

Even today, a light airplane violating the airspace around the nation's capitol in Washington DC is enough to stop the country's political machine, evacuate congress, and send enough firepower to vaporize a large city to intercept it. That's the kind of response even a light airplane gets today. So, you ask, why would a terrorist consider using a light airplane? Do you really have to ask that?

When Mattias Rust landed at the Kremlin with his Cessna 172, nobody in the Politburo was laughing. Nobody thought a Cessna 150 could have landed (crashed) on the Whitehouse lawn. But it happened. You might not take it seriously, but rest assured that the public does, and the body politic does, too. So long as that's the fuel of the legislation that decides your privilege to fly, you should take it just as seriously.

The lost life and damage done is irrelevant and really quite meaningless. The loss of freedom and the public panic that follows in it's wake is what a terrorist act is all about. Take it seriously.

youngskywalker

24th Jun 2008, 19:31

Whilst we all agree that 9/11 was a terrible event in history and not one easily forgotten, it's also worth remembering that In the UK until recently we had been living for about 40 years with a much more serious and lets face it far more successful terrorist orgonisation accross the Irish sea, one which incidentaly the Americans sympathised with and helped 'fund raise!'

Edited to add: I'm not disputing what your are saying Sns3guppy, just that we Brits really dont need much education with regards dealing with terrorism!:)

cgg

24th Jun 2008, 20:16

If anything legislative as to happen in light of this report, it would be another nail in the coffin of democracy and freedom. The irony of all of this is that the democratic culture that we celebrate is not being eroded by terrorism but by the police state eager to justify its existence and purpose fuelled by the ignorance and assumed self importance of the media.

In reality the threat from the IRA was far more intrusive to our everyday lives yet life went on and survived. Sure there were legislative measures brought in to deal with it but none as Orwellian as we see now. When they wanted to hurt the British public, they knew how to do it without raising suspicion.

I also wonder whether the same senior police officers also want to see UAV's used for policing purposes and want to remove some of the operating constraints such as GA. They are of course all stakeholders in the Mode S debate and its not difficult to see why.

Whilst I don't enjoy watching politicians grandstanding for attention, I might support the wider point that David Davies is trying to make in his by-election. Enough is enough.

:mad:

wsmempson

24th Jun 2008, 20:59

I suppose light aircraft could be used as flying bombs; I suspect the likelihood is right up there with senior policemen being recruited as suicide bombers. Possible, just not terribly likely....:confused:

robin

24th Jun 2008, 21:07

Well, given that plod couldn't stop a policeman out on bail for murder of his wife, then going out and killing the witness (his mother-in-law) and himself.....

Life is a risk, but our leaders are totally risk-averse. They cannot conceive that things can go wrong.

Let's take an example - the British Grand Prix is stopped because a press helicopter crashes on the grandstand at Club corner. A tragic accident

Or a helicopter flies into the grandstand at Club corner - a terrorist outrage

Same loss of life, but either could happen.

IO540

24th Jun 2008, 21:07

It's also pretty damn difficult to get your hands on a light jet, and then load it up with a huge bomb without it being noticed.

One can make the same argument for chartered transport jets. You can lease a 747 if you want to. That is a much bigger security issue. But the 9/11 lot didn't do that; they went to the much greater trouble of hijacking them.

Ground all transport jets?

Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the "light jet" danger which is all over today's front pages is coming out of the airlines who are getting a lot of competition from light jets. You can get say 5 company execs 1000nm for slightly over £10k (return) which compares awfully well with flying them conventionally, and that is before one costs in the huge hassle of using an airline. The light jet business must be very seriously hurting the 1st class ticket business.

mm_flynn

24th Jun 2008, 21:13

Both sides of a coin

1 - skywalker - In terms of mainland casualties inflicted, long term disruption, or 'terrorising effect' the IRA was not in the same league as the 9/11 attacks. For much of the time they sought to create low grade annoyance to inspire political change. 9/11 was much more about maximising body count. Furthermore, with a deliverable political objective you could also see a way out of the Irish mess. Much less clear in the current situation.

2 - SNS3 - While the devastation to GA in the aftermath of 9/11 was clear, the US authorities have generally adjusted their position to a more sensible one. When an Islamo nutter used a training aircraft in a suicide attack in Florida, (which demonstrated how poor light GA is at this kind of attack) there doesn't seem to have been any significant change in policy. We need to worry about things that really could deliver another 'spectacular' not about hypothetical risks that some media intern dreams up.

west lakes

24th Jun 2008, 21:41

The same think tank (and I use those two words carefully) in an earlier report warned that utility workers are a source of risk and should be investigated

still waiting!!

youngskywalker

24th Jun 2008, 22:55

I see the recent 'problem' caused more by Bush and Blair, and besides, sns3guppy correctly states that it's not the body count that matters it's the continous threat that the terrorism causes. I grew up watching the news each evening waiting to see another poor family member of a para that had his head blown off while patrolling a street in Northern Ireland. I used to fly with an ex RUC officer, his stories of escaping an IRA death squad were frightning. 40years of that pointless bloodshed, America has had Pearl harbour and 9/11.

ShyTorque

24th Jun 2008, 23:05

Over-reaction only helps the terrorist achieve his aim, by it's very definition. One act of terrorism, many inconveniences and prohibitions result. Job done, if we let it be so. From experience I know what it is to be targeted. It is easy to become a victim, but we shouldn't let it affect our everyday lives to the extent that we cannot function.

Flying Binghi

24th Jun 2008, 23:24

The loss of freedom and the public panic that follows in it's wake is what a terrorist act is all about. Take it seriously.

Thats a fairly defeatest post from you Guppy :(

I think public perception on how to deal with terrorism may very well be changing to a more considered approch because of one big lesson... IRAQ

Personaly I dont see why aviation has to wear every miss-guided and/or ill-advised polititions ideas about where the next terror threat will come from. It can come from anywhere, and probably be just as dramatic, if not more-so, then anything that can be done with an aircraft.

Remember Anthrax via mail... post 9-elleven, I recall people being far more concerned about what was arriving in their own mail then the posibility that an aircraft will fly into their building - 99.9% of people DONT work in tall buildings.

It is unforetunate that as a pilot I have to piont out alternate possibilities (petrol at the night club scenario) to counter these 'seen to be doing something' reports (or is that 'inflating their own self importance' reports) that focus on aviation as THE threat.

SNS3Guppy

24th Jun 2008, 23:31

Edited to add: I'm not disputing what your are saying Sns3guppy, just that we Brits really dont need much education with regards dealing with terrorism!

In a land where the Bobby has had the authority and power for years to shout "Halt, or I shall yell 'Halt!' again!", perhaps you do need a little education on dealing with terrorism. Simply because you've been a frequent victim of terrorism doesn't mean you should laugh it off. Nor for one moment imagine that simply because a light airplane can't do a lot of collateral damage, it's not a threat to be taken very seriously. It is a threat, primarily to you, the private pilot, who will be most effected by the fall out of what might occur.

Again, it matters not a whit if ten people or a thousand might be killed by a bomb in a light airplane. A handfull of people, while certainly a tragedy, isn't the goal of the terrorist act in the first place. That no sigificant amount of physical damage might be caused by a cherokee, is of no consequence. It's irrelevant. What is very relevant is the results that will happen politically, financially, and with respect to freedom.

I flew an ambulance flight post 09/11 in which we were unable to leave the airport. It was locked up tight. I was standing inside the fence with a heart team and a pile of equipment and coolers, and no way to get through the airport fence. Security concerns had high barbed wire and concertin wire on fences around the field, the gates chained and padlocked, and no way to get the surgeons to their body. I had to call the fire department to arrange to have someone come unlock the gate. That's more than a mere inconvenience, but for you, the private pilot, the ability to fly at all might be entirely lost should a timed attack take place with several light airplanes.

The damage done is irrelevant. The results afterward are very relevant.

No, the IRA hasn't done that. But they could, as could anyone. If you think a little excitement by Lord Twattle hurts your feelings because it's an anti-aviation sentiment, then wait for the real fall out when it happens.

As for the US supporting the IRA, we're still locking horns with some of their folks, and their trainees, in Colombia, among other places. Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein has never been a friend to the US. Never the less, you've got your domestic troubles, the US has hers; bigger threats face you than a few peat farmers lighting a fuse after tossing back a pint.

I was in XXX in the UK recently and taking a walk one evening. I had to laugh out loud when a man came charging down a street to catch up with a Bobby who was waiting next to me to cross the road. The man was excited and jibbering about this terrible crime that had befallen him. When he calmed down, he explained that he didn't like the meal he'd been served, and the resteraunt owner wouldn't provide a refund. Oh, the horror. With crime like that and a police force armed with a pen and and a night stick, doubtless you're prepared for a massive enemy invasion. Sleep tight.

When an Islamo nutter used a training aircraft in a suicide attack in Florida, (which demonstrated how poor light GA is at this kind of attack) there doesn't seem to have been any significant change in policy.

That wasn't a terrorist attack. That was a boy, a child who elected to commit suicide with no real forethought or preparation. Change that to six or seven dedicated extremists who coordinate their attacks (real attacks, not just a crashed airplane) at the same time and you'll see aviation come to a standstill not only in Florida but throughout the US.

Attack? Not even close.

It's also pretty damn difficult to get your hands on a light jet, and then load it up with a huge bomb without it being noticed.

No, actually. It's increadibly easy. Much, much more so than you might imagine. And that is a big part of the problem.

One can make the same argument for chartered transport jets. You can lease a 747 if you want to. That is a much bigger security issue. But the 9/11 lot didn't do that; they went to the much greater trouble of hijacking them.

Not exactly. What's involved in shipping via an ACMI B747 is a little more involved than simply chartering the airplane and putting on board a bomb. You can't simply lease a 747. You can arrange for the Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, and Insurance (ACMI) and arrange transportation of your goods, pending approval, but it's an involved process in which security plays a part on many levels.

It's what I do, presently.

youngskywalker

24th Jun 2008, 23:58

Our 'Bobby's' manage just fine without having to be armed with M16's, glocks and MP5's thank you! And the last two invasions that Britain faced, once by a French chap and another time from a mad Austrian, we also saw them off without arming our coppers or from any help from the US, despite what hollywood might tell you!

I actually really like reading your posts sns3, especially on the private forum, one thing i have always admired about american pilots is the vast amount of flying experience that you guys have so please dont take this personally, but when it comes to domestic matters of defence, civil defence and military inteligence my confidence lies very much with our own professionals and experince that we hard earned over many years.

Ex Cargo Clown

25th Jun 2008, 01:44

1 - skywalker - In terms of mainland casualties inflicted, long term disruption, or 'terrorising effect' the IRA was not in the same league as the 9/11 attacks. For much of the time they sought to create low grade annoyance to inspire political change. 9/11 was much more about maximising body count. Furthermore, with a deliverable political objective you could also see a way out of the Irish mess. Much less clear in the current situation.

Absolute, complete and utter rubbish.

If they wanted to cause maximum loss of life they would have "smeared" NYC with the aircraft and killed far more people.

It was a symbolic attack, and there were ways to kill far more people.

As for your argument about the IRA, well the Americans decided to fund them for quite some time. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Americans, yes 11/9 was an awful event, but in the greater scale of things it really wasn't that bad.

How many innocent Iraqis have been killed ?

What goes around comes around......

englishal

25th Jun 2008, 02:07

The ironic thing about knee jerk reactions after 911 was that all the aeroplanes involved were in fact on IFR flight plans and talking to ATC, so there is no reason to clamp down on VFR at all.

You could put a reasonable amount of explosive in a light aeroplane but whether you could do much damage with it is another matter. You'd do better to park up at the end of the Heathrow runways and get a stinger AA missile out of the boot and take out a fully loaded 747, or blowing up your truck bomb in the City of London....Oh yea, the IRA already did that one...........

SNS3Guppy

25th Jun 2008, 05:28

And the last two invasions that Britain faced, once by a French chap and another time from a mad Austrian, we also saw them off without arming our coppers or from any help from the US, despite what hollywood might tell you!

Don't get too carried away. We're the reason you're not speaking German at the moment, actually.

wsmempson

25th Jun 2008, 06:17

"As for the US supporting the IRA, we're still locking horns with some of their folks, and their trainees, in Colombia, among other places. Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein has never been a friend to the US."

SNG do you actually mean this? If I correct for the double-negative, this is what you have actually said;

"either the IRA or Sinn Fein has ever been a friend to the US."

As for US support of the IRA, wasn't there a fundrasing outfit called NorAid?

SNS3Guppy

25th Jun 2008, 06:40

That would be the opposite of what I said. Sinn Fein has never been a friend to the US, and visa versa. The IRA has never been a friend to the US, and visa versa. Can't be more clear than that.

The US has never supported NorAid, and in fact classifies some of it's sympathies as terrorist organizations, along with the UK. NorAid is not and never has been supported by the US government. It does not represent the United States, and is a private organization.

DeeCee

25th Jun 2008, 08:22

By the time the US entered the war two years in, the Battle of Britain had been won, air authority established and Hitler had abandoned his plan to invade. I suggest that we would not now be speaking German, but the rest of Europe might be, if it wasn't for the invaulable assistance of the USA in joining us in the bid to liberate Europe.

Education is a wonderful thing.

TractorBoy

25th Jun 2008, 08:24

No Foehn

25th Jun 2008, 08:33

I spent a lot of time in the US in the early 1980s and encountered an overwhelming sympathy for the IRA coupled with a hostility for the UK position. There were open collections for Noraid on the streets, and I saw many fund-raising events organised in Boston and San Francisco. There may not have been active government support for these activities, but there was widespread tolerance. Terrorist leaders were fêted at the White House, and led St Patrick's Day parades.

Times change and events change attitudes. As I was affected by the carnage in my local pub in Caterham, or by being just around the corner when the Harrods bomb went off, so were Americans that September 11th.

After all, the United States were founded by a terrorist insurrection against the legitimate authority. One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. Normally, it depends who wins.

By the way, Guppy, the British successfully and definitively fought off invasion in 1940 whilst Ambassador Kennedy was doing his best to destabilise them, and whilst the US government was procrastinating for electoral reasons. The invasion of the European mainland and the ultimate defeat of Hitler was another matter.

DeeCee

25th Jun 2008, 08:50

You may be right comrade!

Also, some people in the USA obviously regarded the IRA as some kind of Robin Hood organisation. I was reasonably close to two IRA bombs, one at the Old Bailey and the other at Staples Corner. I was beginning to think that they were following me around.

qwertyplop

25th Jun 2008, 09:10

Emmmm - but if you can't fart on a major airfield without someone knowing about it then the option, if aviation is your thing and you are a bad boy, is to move to a small airfield. The argument about cars is a weak argument, all major sites are protected by concrete barriers and, where necessary, an overt law enforcement presence. This is not a secret.

People, from what I've read, seem to be confusing the private guard forces at airports (muppets) with the authorities trying to deal with this problem (generally good guys). The above is obvious and all this rhetoric about the authorities not knowing what they are doing is complete crap, if there is no threat at the moment as has been suggested, it does not mean that there won't be a threat in the future. If drugs and people are being moved in and out of the country, why not this issue?

Prudent command and control strategies dictate that they need to gauge the issue and suggest proactive and reactive counter measures to their operational and political masters. GA would be better off working with them as stakeholders rather than against them IMHO, if GA sets out it stall with deference to this notion, then GA will be all the better equipped to deal with issues as they arise.

All this 'we're self regulating and self policing' thinking is what is going to undo GA. That's the dangerous thinking here IMHO.

:ugh:

Contacttower

25th Jun 2008, 09:38

Guppy makes a very good point. Terrorism should be taken very seriously indeed.

Considering though that there haven't been any specific proposals yet from the Government on how to make private aviation more secure wouldn't a more constructive discussion to be having be what can be done to make GA more secure?...Or whether we should bother at all?

Also; without making any judgement either way I wonder how many people on here would change their views if there was a terrorist attack using a private plane tomorrow?

eltonioni

25th Jun 2008, 09:54

I would think the same as I did when two men drove a 4x4 into a Scottish passenger terminal. I didn't go out and sell my 4x4.

Other than grounding all private aircraft how would anyone ever prevent a PA28 crashing into the kop end at Old Trafford at 3.00pm pm one Saturday afternoon while the cameras are rolling?

Sure there is a risk, but the risk / reward ratio is what most people are concerned about. Disproportionate mitigation measures are a bigger risk to our 'way of life' than any terrorist.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

25th Jun 2008, 10:26

Rather than agonising over how we could make private aviation more secure, perhaps we should spend some time considering if we sensibly need to. The reason I used the microlight analogy earlier was to give a clue to the scale of the perceived problem The whole point of microlighting was that anyone with at least part of a brain could do it and it was simple and inexpensive. A microlight can also launch from any flatish, levelish field slightly bigger than a football pitch. How many fields are there like that in these fair Isles? How safe can we sensibly make that without killing it as an activity?

As I also said earlier, these ill thought out and over valued threats are music to the policeman mentality. If we are worried that the general population will be worried and take it seriously, it is perhaps up to us as fellow members of the general population to expose it for what it is. It could so easily be ridiculed in the form of a Goon Show plot.

If the freedoms we have now are further curtailed or rendered tedious through over regulation, the terrs have won yet again.

airborne_artist

25th Jun 2008, 10:32

GBZ - and if you take your microlight analogy a bit further, consider a paramotor...

Flying Binghi

25th Jun 2008, 10:42

Has every body foregotten the Anthrax scare post 9-elleven ? It was actualy a big concern for most people - far more-so then aircraft :eek:....... Unforetunatly it doesnt have the same evening TV news effect as aircraft flying into buildings, probably why most have foregotten all about it :hmm:

.......WHO needs an aircraft when you can post it :ooh:

BackPacker

25th Jun 2008, 10:59

Sure there is a risk, but the risk / reward ratio is what most people are concerned about.

Not quite. What people are worried about is perceived risk. This is skewed by things like media attention but also by the amount of influence that the people themselves have on the risk.

What a terrorists want is to change this perceived risk, not the actual statistical risk, and thereby change behaviour of people, eventually changing society.

There's a lot of statistics on the web about actual causes of death in the US. This is just one of them:

10 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2004 — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html)

Nine out of ten main causes of death in the US are basically health-related. A lot of these can be mitigated by adopting a healthier lifestyle. Yet the government does not do a whole lot in encouraging people to get a better lifestyle, or discouraging unhealthy lifestyles.

The other main cause of death is "unintentional injuries" and if you dig a little deeper into the statistics, you'll find that most of these are motor vehicle incidents - 40.000 deaths per year on average in the US alone. A lot of which can be prevented by wearing seatbelts, not go driving while drunk, not speeding and so forth. Perhaps even by raising the legal limit to drive a car from 16 to 18. Or encouraging people to take public transport, a pushbike or even walk somewhere. But oh, no, let's not do anything about the ultimate display of personal freedom!

Dogs kill way more people each year than sharks in the US. Yet Yaws is seen as a thriller and Lassie as a family movie. There's about as many deaths from furniture catching fire as from plane accidents. Yet, people have no fear whatsoever from sitting (and smoking) on a couch but loads of them have a fear of flying.

Bruce Schneier, in his book "Beyond Fear" identifies the following reasons for the difference between perceived risk and actual risk:
- People exaggerate spectacular but rare risks and downplay common risks.
- People have trouble estimating risks for anything not exactly like their normal situation
- Personified risks are perceived to be greater than anonymous risks.
- People underestimate risks they willingly take and overestimate risks in situations they can't control
- People overestimate risks that are being talked about and remain an object of public scrutiny.

Terrorists know this and play on these five perceptions so that a relatively minor attack has the greatest possible impact. 9/11 killed 3000 people one day and has so far been a unique occurrence. AIDS alone kills approximately 10.000 people per day, every day of the year (3 million deaths annually, worldwide). Yet, how much money is being spent on airline security vs. AIDS research? How much media attention does the War on Terror get vs. AIDS research? How much pressure does the US government put on countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a few others for condemning terrorism and punishing/extraditing terrorist leaders vs. how much pressure does the US government put on the Pope to allow, or even encourage, condom usage in Africa?

A big part of this is the question "can this happen to me"? With driving and with a lot of other activities we feel in control, so we downplay the risks. Other activities, such as going to a busy market square in Israel, or having sex in Africa, we feel we can avoid them. But there are activities, such as flying as a passenger in a commercial aircraft, where we feel at risk, we can't avoid, and don't have control of the situation. Those are the activities that play the terrorists card the best.

Bomb in a small airplane? Most of the general public will never go near a small airplane so that part of the perceived risk is zero. They do go into high-rise buildings but that's something they do every day and there they feel in control. And the payload of a small aircraft is such that even a high explosive (if you can obtain that, get it on board and explode it at the right moment) will do limited damage. Less than what could be obtained with a small van in a parking garage. Yes, it will kill the pilot and a few people on the ground but it won't fundamentally alter the lifestyle of a lot of people. I don't think that makes a good terrorist plot - although it would have an effect on GA, for sure.

I'm not saying we should ignore terrorism altogether. But I see a lot of short-sightedness in the response to perceived terrorism threats. All sorts of silly and counterproductive legislation being passed, and this legislation is then used for non-terrorism-related goals. People, government, politicians, police forces, airlines and a lot of other stakeholders all have different, and sometimes hidden, agendas and find that by invoking the t-word they can advance those agendas.

Fortunately the tide is turning. I read today that there's a Senate hearing about whether customs officials are allowed to search your laptop for suspicious files or not. This was one of the measures that were needed, someone thought, to stop terrorism but whose only effect seems to be to annoy a lot of business travelers. Recently an air marshal was prevented from boarding the flight he was supposed to safeguard, because his name was on the TSA no-fly list, so now, finally, TSA is modifying the way the no-fly list works. And Charlie Black has backed down from, and will possibly be fired over his speculation that a terrorist attack right now would be good for McCains polls.

airborne_artist

25th Jun 2008, 11:17

Backpacker - great post.

Remember that politicians like to be seen to be doing things that make them look good in the eyes of the electorate. Is there just a chance that this issue was given lots of spin by the Government to make it look like they are competent in what is a key area for the electorate, law and order?

Personally I'm far to cynical to imagine that this is anything but a cover-up story to get us off issues like the economy, fuel prices, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., all of which are seen by much of the public as areas of government failure.

fireflybob

25th Jun 2008, 11:20

Must say the title of this thread reminds me of Peter Sellers and The Pink Panther series - this has all the ingredients of a Sellers plot!

You said "Bummmm" , no you said "Bummm" then "Wait my hand is on fire! AGGH"

BackPacker

25th Jun 2008, 12:13

Is there just a chance that this issue was given lots of spin by the Government to make it look like they are competent in what is a key area for the electorate, law and order?

If 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror, including the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, would not have happened, do you think Bush would have been reelected?

As you said: people want to see the government do something. Waging war is probably the best way of being seen doing something. Even if the war is waged for the wrong reasons, with no clear objective and no exit strategy.

And this was made worse by the fact that until recently the political climate in the US was such that you could not even criticize the US government and presidency for what happened with the WoT, Iraq and Afghanistan, or risk being dismissed as "unpatriottic", "not supporting the troops" etc. In other words you were not allowed to question the status quo, which was brought on by politicians. Of course not being able to question the status quo also meant that the political situation would never change. And that is exactly what a sitting presidency/congress/senate wants, because its means getting reelected.

OwnNav

25th Jun 2008, 12:41

It's already been done :eek:

Vehicle: Little Nellie
Owner: James Bond
Status: Stored at Q-Branch

A small one-seater autogiro, just 9.5 feet in length, a weight of 250 pounds with a top speed of 160 km/h. It's maximum altitude was 18,000 feet, perfect for recon missions.

Specs
The brightly coloured autogiro was laden with the following mechanisms:

Dual, synchronized machine guns
Left and right forward firing rocket launchers
Rear firing dual flame throwers with an 80 yard range
Dual smoke screen dispensers
ATA heat seeking missiles
Aerial mines, to be dropped from above the victim

Pace

25th Jun 2008, 13:09

Ok adding my bit to this thread.
As I have posted before I live in London and use the London Tube system a lot.

Come rush hour masses of people push, shove and squeeze to get onto the tubes which are packed with hundreds of people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Returning from My Business jet flights I drag My overnight case behind me as do many people of all different races and colours.

Where is the security? where are the scanning devices so that my case and others can be checked.

Where are the security people checking whether I have more than 100 ml of fluid?
NON EXISTANT!!!

To the Government Terrorism= Aviation, Aviation =Terrorism end of story. It is about time we said enough is enough stop destroying our industry and making aviation the scapegoat for Government failings.

What a joke all this is. All these politicians and so called law makers can do to justify their non productive jobs is to sit around thinking up even more hairbrained ideas to waste even more public money and to restrict peoples freedom more and more.

In the UK we are one big brother state. We claim our freedoms yet we are more controlled and have less freedom.

Production in the UK went down the drain. Now we have nothing but finanancial markets and leaisure industries and law maker jobs.

The Government want to create another 3000 jobs for what???

Fly into any small airport that takes just a few movements a day and see the army of security staff standing around with nothing to do waiting for the odd Cessna 172 to arrive so that they can jump on its two occupants to save the country.

The uk has gone mad

Pace

Supersport

25th Jun 2008, 14:55

I agree with the majority opinion here, there is far to much focus / attention / Paranoia from the Government on Aviation as a tool for terrorism, especially when, as has been explained in previous post, there are far more easier targets for terrorists to use.

BUT

One good thing that could possibly stem from this report is a decent border control or proper coastguard. B*llocks to terrorism, a bigger problem this country has is its out of control immigration, lets face it, anyone can get in.

IO540

25th Jun 2008, 15:12

Anybody can get in anyway.

The UK has a few thousand miles of coastline, and you cannot stop a boat getting in, especially after dark.

This is the reality of the "free world".

The country I come from had dual barbed wire fences, about 30m apart, all around it. The fence was electrified, lethally of course. The space between the fences was mostly mined with anti-personnel mines. There was a road all the way along, patrolled regularly by armed guards.

That worked pretty well; short of Special Forces know-how, somebody getting you a foreign passport, or you brown-nosing and creeping around the Communist Party circles for many years until you were "trusted", you would not get out (or in, though of course nobody would want to do that anyway). Even lakes which were shared with the "decadent West" were closely patrolled, with underwater nets, although that is definitely where I would have crossed had I still been there.

The only way large numbers can come into the UK is via conventional overt routes and those are all controlled.

Border controls are meaningless for controlling individual mobility.

All that limits mobility nowadays is controls on employment (illegal work offers pretty limited options, unless you are female and desperate) and the fact that not everybody wants to uproot everything and move to a country where the tabloids, and many people, will hate you and where everything costs a fortune.

Contacttower

25th Jun 2008, 15:36

A recurring theme of Government action on terrorism (and I don't particularly blame them for this) is that only measures that are practical and easy to implement are generally done. Extra security at airports where security is already in place is relatively easy. Walling off the back of Parliament is quite simple. Putting scanners on the tube? Well that's harder, not really practical (we have knife scanners at some stations and the police use portable ones sometimes but they are more concerned with catching feral youths than terrorists) and although it was talked about I think the government realises that they are never going to make the tube secure.

Lord Carlile is just one 'expert' who happens to have written a report which contains concerns about aviation and terrorism. I actually doubt whether the Government will pay much attention to aspects of the report relating to "lax" security at small airfields and even if they do they will soon realise that attempts to clamp down on private flying will just be impractical....the police don't have the resources and although Lord Carlile raised "concerns" I don't think he has much of an idea of what to do about them.

The police can ask private flyers to be vigilant but much more than that would fail a basic cost and practicality test so I rather doubt we have much to fear in this case...

Supersport

25th Jun 2008, 15:39

Anybody can get in anyway.

The UK has a few thousand miles of coastline, and you cannot stop a boat getting in, especially after dark.

This is the reality of the "free world".

So what you are basically saying is... whatever the UK Government does with regards to Border Control... in order to minimalise Illegal Immigration... is essentially pointless?

The only way large numbers can come into the UK is via conventional overt routes and those are all controlled.

I agree, but these conventional routes are definately not controlled properly IMHO.

All that limits mobility nowadays is controls on employment (illegal work offers pretty limited options, unless you are female and desperate) and the fact that not everybody wants to uproot everything and move to a country where the tabloids, and many people, will hate you and where everything costs a fortune.

Be that as it may... people are still coming here to the UK, illegally... in the thousands.

If borders are monitored / guarded more closely and frequently and if laws are tightened, it will without doubt make it more difficult for people to come here illegally.

SS

PS. Sorry for the thread drift :rolleyes:

Contacttower

25th Jun 2008, 15:51

In 2005 the Government estimated the UK had about 500,000 illegal immigrants.

Quite what could be done to improve border control I'm not sure (certainly the plans for a new border police service should be welcomed)....most of Europe after all gave up having border controls ages ago. But then they also mostly have ID cards...arguably making illegal immigrants easier to catch.

IO540

25th Jun 2008, 15:55

So what you are basically saying is... whatever the UK Government does with regards to Border Control... in order to minimalise Illegal Immigration... is essentially pointless?

Yes. Border control is a totally dead concept in modern Europe.

You need to realise that the "Daily Mail headline" entry techniques (50 Vietnamese packed in some container) account for virtually nothing. The other 99% come in overtly, with legal paperwork.

If you don't like it, campaign for the UK to withdraw from the EU.

gasman123

25th Jun 2008, 16:12

"In a land where the Bobby has had the authority and power for years to shout "Halt, or I shall yell 'Halt!' again!", perhaps you do need a little education on dealing with terrorism."

Sorry, that's how we do things, and, guess what? We don't seem to get shot (by criminals or by the police shooting at criminals) anywhere near as often over here. Unless you are a Brazilian electrician.

I left Belfast in 1988 to go to university in England. My childhood memories are of bombs going off regularly, guns being pointed at me, checkpoints and searches. That was a fairly middle class experience, It was much worse for many others.
Over 30 years of troubles government measures to restrict freedom were opposed. We did not carry identity cards, and would have resisted all efforts to have this imposed. We got on with our lives, with far less of the current hysteria. As did many people in the mainland. The threat to life was much greater, the terrorists much more intelligent and organised. Over 3000 deaths from a population of 1.25 million in NI =750,000 deaths in the USA pro rata if you do the maths. Don't say 9/11 was more effective.

Call me paranoid but a lot of this fear is created and persisted by government as a means of power over the general populace. The Bush administration know this, and play to it openly. The US has a great history of this, from McCarthyism to today. It is no way to run a country. We are at risk of becoming as bad.

Keep realistic measures going on in the background of course, but please do not jump on the bandwagon of unfounded fears or the terrorists truly will have won.

Pace

25th Jun 2008, 16:41

>Keep realistic measures going on in the background of course, but please do not jump on the bandwagon of unfounded fears or the terrorists truly will have won.<

Gasman

The terorists truly did win. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11, The financial costs have been massive not only in putting together the infrastructure and technology to secure airports but in the billions lost in time wasted at airports not just by holiday makers but more importantly by business.

We have also lost by the lack of freedom and the big brother surveillance that now plagues us.

How much of this is due to genuine concerns about security or as with the green issue where the green issue was used to raise tax through the back door,how much has the security issue been used by Government to legitimise their desire to have a controlled state. Who knows.

The green issue had the government rubbing their hands with glee, of course they were saving the planet not their coffer balance.

Now they have security, of course they are saving us not using this issue for creating the big brother state they desire and may I say creating unproductive jobs to conceil the recession and increasing unemployment rates.

But whatever the terrorists have already won big time.

pace

SNS3Guppy

25th Jun 2008, 17:03

After all, the United States were founded by a terrorist insurrection against the legitimate authority. One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter.

Not quite. In the United States, we defeated a tyrant and rejected the king. Hardly terrorist. We simply soundly defeated an undesireable oppressive force and chose freedom over subservient domination. A terrorist wages a campain of fear against the general populace. In the United States we simply kicked mother Britain's butt. There is a certain distinction, with no bearing on the activities of Sinn Fein, the IRA, or Al Qaeda, for that matter.

The boston tea party...that was simply a tax protest.

But whatever the terrorists have already won big time.

Not yet, but in the lily-skinned protected world in which many live, it must seem so. Visit Lagos, Bagdhad, or Johannesburg to see about terror in your daily life. A security check point and simple precautions to make society safer, and to feel safer, are not signs the terrorists have won. Not yet.

The US has a great history of this, from McCarthyism to today. It is no way to run a country. We are at risk of becoming as bad.

You're already there, mate. You apparently just don't know it yet. Your flying freedoms are not nearly what they are in the US, nor is your aviation. Your ability to own firearms, what we call a constitutional right, is so severely curtailed it's pathetic, with recent descents into the abyss wherein travelers in the UK have been banned for having a picture of a toy gun on their shirt, and what's this we hear of rumblings of knife bans, too? Then again, the US was made independent by citizens who owned firearms, so we do take it as a personal god-given right and responsibility. Fear of the government, with the government, something not heard of in Britain, you say? Hardly.

The Bush administration know this, and play to it openly.

The bush administration is a laughing stock and not taken seriously by most US citizens. Play to it openly? About as much as Jim Carrey playing openly to a theater full of Shakespeare afficianados. Fear wrought on by the bush administration? Only fear of his next blunder or embarassment. That's enough.

DeeCee

25th Jun 2008, 17:57

SNS3Guppy - your grasp of life in the UK is a shaky as your grasp of history. Talking of the American Constitution, as you were, perhaps you can tell me this. Where did most of the wording come from?

gasman123

25th Jun 2008, 18:11

SN - slightly confused, you chastise us for not taking terrorism as seriously as the USA on this issue, you consider making all flights IFR, yet you tell us that you have much greater flying rights than us- what is it to be?

"Your ability to own firearms, what we call a constitutional right, is so severely curtailed it's pathetic"

Yep, give em guns, tell them they've got a democracy & they will think they are truly free. Just make sure most of them aren't educated enough to work it out. Speaking of democracy, didn't Bush get voted in a second time on the basis of the "war against terror?"?

Pace, I'm afraid I probably agree with you, it saddens me to say:(

ShyTorque

25th Jun 2008, 18:17

Terrorism is impossible to prevent by increased security. As one door closes, another door opens for those with an evil intent.

The terrorist, having made his point, simply moves on to other tactics another time.

What we should always consider is how far we are actually prepared to tie ourselves in knots (or allow our government to do it for us) because of our fear of terrorism.

youngskywalker

25th Jun 2008, 18:54

Guppy, you dont like Britain or us Brits much do you? :hmm:

Do you really think that would solve everything to allow us all fire arms? You may still like to live as if you are in the wild west but we do things a little differently over here, we tend to use our heads and not the trigger. Our college students rarely resort to mass gun massacres when they cant make friends...

Do us all a favour and keep your opinions and advice on matters of national security to yourself, or find an American forum to massage your ego.

When you have something sensible to write about an aviation topic then I'm all ears and will beg to your supreme experience.

The Americans giving other countries advise on the prevention of terrorism and national security! You must be having a laugh, surely?! :} Dear God!

Pace

25th Jun 2008, 19:15

SNS3Guppy

I have flown in the USA and reside in the UK. As you know I hold FAA ATP.
In many ways you are correct as flying especially GA has always been more accepted and you are not burdened by the taxation and costs that we have in the UK.

I was never a great lover of Mrs Thatcher but she did want to reduce government intervention in peoples lives and the volume of red tape and beaurocracy which was inherant from left wing policies of old.

Now we have flipped back the other way where every street is scanned by some surveillance camera, where we pay more taxes than anywhere in the world, where the transport industry is on its knees because of the massive fuel costs (mostly tax) over here.

The Government have introduced stealth taxes to such an extent that for people living in the uk cannot cope with the costs.
All the beaurocracy has been reinstated and with that beaurocracy huge costs and unproductive jobs put into place to create a big brother state.

With all that we do not get the services but we get the living costs to maintain this out of control monster.

Fuel now costs more than aircraft rental. We have landing and navigation charges which would make you go weak at the knees and the government keep examining with a microscope every angle where we can be curtailed more and taxed more.

We have a Government in power who now are so unpopular they do not know how to turn the tide against them.

That why it makes me mad when there is talk about creating a 3000 strong border patrol at whos cost and for what? and further talk about the danger of business jets and 172s being used by terrorists when there are so many more real targets for terrorists which are ignored by our clever masters.

So yes you do have greater freedoms as far as aviation is concerned GA like many areas of transport in the UK is being driven to the wall and destroyed.

Pace

fireflybob

25th Jun 2008, 20:39

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
Helen Keller, The Open Door (1957)
US blind & deaf educator (1880 - 1968)

shortstripper

25th Jun 2008, 20:40

America ... The land of the free!

Unless of course you want to travel to Cuba :E

SS

SNS3Guppy

25th Jun 2008, 21:20

Guppy, you dont like Britain or us Brits much do you?

My immediate family is English and Welsh, and my extended family is Irish.

As you know I hold FAA ATP.

I didn't know. Now I do. Thanks for sharing that.

Talking of the American Constitution, as you were, perhaps you can tell me this. Where did most of the wording come from?

James Madison.

You may be referring to the English Bill of Rights...which unfortunately wasn't provided for or available in any form of freedom to the colonists who elected to reject the monarchy and embrace a democratic republic. The magna carta had certain influence...itself a document formed from uprising and change. The actions leading to the development and signing of the magna carta weren't terrorist in nature, either. The big difference was that the Barons who forced John into the signing agreed to future loyalty, whereas the uprising colonies which became the United States rejected the monarchy out of hand, without exception.

Yep, give em guns, tell them they've got a democracy & they will think they are truly free. Just make sure most of them aren't educated enough to work it out. Speaking of democracy, didn't Bush get voted in a second time on the basis of the "war against terror?"?

Bush lost the popular election, actually. He certainly wasn't elected on the basis of his "war against terror." That's something he invented, and with which few people are stupid enough to side. Were it a pure democracy, Bush wouldn't have won the election; he lost the popular vote. Mine included. I wouldn't really call the United States an uneducated country.

Gun control worked for Hitler. It worked for most of the dictators and tyrants throughout history; disarm the populace in order to control the populace. A government should never have need to fear it's own constituancy. Then again, thankfully the US was able to liberate itself from an oppresive tyranny early in the game, and that mate, was done with personal firearms. Freedom has never been purchased, but with bloodshed and the point of a spear.

SN - slightly confused, you chastise us for not taking terrorism as seriously as the USA on this issue,

I didn't make the comparison. I did state that those who dismiss the risk of a terrorist action using light aircraft as nothing, who suggest that it's not a threat because of the lack of potential collateral damage, are naive and are certainly missing the big picture. It was others here who defensively missed the point and suggested that instead the UK has great lessons to teach the world on the subject.

As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).

For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.

Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.

Contacttower

25th Jun 2008, 21:30

Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.

But what do you recommend we do to address that?

I simply can't imagine the Government coming up with coherent, practical plans that would make GA more secure without damaging it significantly. We could have only IFR, we could have secure airsides at every airfield, etc etc....but none of that seems very practical.

youngskywalker

25th Jun 2008, 21:31

Man, you are one well balanced individual, a chip on both shoulders! I'd hate to share a flightdeck with you or even worse spend a layover in a hotel bar with you! What happened, did a British chap drill your childhood sweetheart?!:E

Pace

25th Jun 2008, 21:40

>I didn't make the comparison. I did state that those who dismiss the risk of a terrorist action using light aircraft as nothing, who suggest that it's not a threat because of the lack of potential collateral damage, are naive and are certainly missing the big picture. It was others here who defensively missed the point and suggested that instead the UK has great lessons to teach the world on the subject.

As well they should, mind you. They've been driven from most corners of the world at one time or another (yes, the sun really does set on the British empire...most of the time).

For your deeply educated British mind, you perhaps missed the point.

Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant.<

SNS3Guppy

Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)

My arguement is that both the USA and UK seem to think that terrorism = aviation and aviation = terrorism so focus on aviation and the problem vanishes.

I used the example of the London Tube system which I use a lot. Hundreds of packed commuters swarming in masses into a packed tube train equal in numbers to any commercial airliner, but NO security! cases towed into the trains nobody checks what they contain.
No Body says sorry you cannot take more than 100 ml of fluid onto that tube train. No body scans your cases.

Why because the powers that be know that any security would cause chaos and would be unworkable so they direct their attention at poor old aviation and its our beloved aviation which suffers. A scapegoat which seems the target of security and green issues and I thought you for one would want to defend aviation not stick your boot into it too?

Pace

SNS3Guppy

25th Jun 2008, 22:54

Anything is a potential terrorist threat even a garden lawnmower could be loaded with explosives and you dont need much intelligence or skill to drive one of those unless you are trying to get straight lines on your lawn :-)

The difference being that when a lawnmower is packed with explosives and set near the entrance of a mall or public area, then detonated, nobody is going to ban lawnmowers, and the lawnmower industry won't go down the tubes.

What can be done? First of all, take it as seriously as the politicians and the uninformed public does.

In the US, the FAA has had teams that travel about the country for many years who have one job; violate secure areas. For many years, it was as simple as hopping a fence. They would then walk through hangars and secure ramps. Anyone that didn't challenge them or report them was violated. I knew of one group of workers in a hangar that shared a ten thousand dollar fine for failing to ask for ID and report them.

This sounds simple, but much like a police officer giving traffic citations, it raised awareness by enforcing basic practices. I wandered around the world's largest seaplane base a week ago, enjoyed visiting the various aircraft, took in a museum there, got a hair cut. I was there for most of the day, and was challenged by one individual who was keeping heads up and looking for those that didn't belong.

Europe is much better in this respect, and that includes the UK. Fewer airplanes, fewer flying, greater cost, smaller community, but more than you think, as great an opportunity to take an airplane or to do something with it.

The threat isn't to the public at large. The public couldn't care less if general aviation grinds to a standstill. The threat isn't to the man in the butcher shop or the woman in the hair salon. It's to you and I, and security, watchfulness, caution, all come on our shoulders. Not the local constabulary.

When it's among us, the flying community, that the idea isn't taken seriously or fully respected, then there's nothing else standing between public paranoia and the influence of the media to erode or remove our flying privileges or so sharply curtail them as to remove all utility and enjoyment there from. You get the picture. If it's you, the folks participating in this thread, who lightly dismiss the threat, then it's very nearly a done deal. This really is an issue of self-policing. My company; we place security personnel, do background checks, sweep the airplane, yada, yada. But the flying private public? No. I have internal security. I see to it myself as my own role in inspecting the airplane before I fly, etc. But the general aviation community? No. security and the future of general aviation really belongs to you, and it doesn't stand a prayer if you don't take it seriously in all it's forms, benefits, blessings, threats, and failures. It's all on you.

Take it seriously. Act accordingly.

eharding

25th Jun 2008, 23:21

Anyone that didn't challenge them or report them was violated.

Crumbs! I bet that made their eyes water.

eltonioni

26th Jun 2008, 07:34

Take it seriously. Act accordingly.

Like how in your opinion?

Roll over and have our tummy tickled?

BackPacker

26th Jun 2008, 08:10

Take it seriously. Act accordingly.

The terrorist threat is so incredibly small it is completely negligible. Even in aviation. It's the government/public reaction to the perceived terrorist threat that actually threatens aviation the most.

A knee jerk reaction from the aviation community, where we voluntarily implement more security measures (most of them ineffective) to combat a virtually non-existing threat will only give the public the idea that aviation really has a problem, or even is the problem.

While if we try to put the threat in perspective, talk about it in realistic terms, show the public how safety-conscious aviation has been the last 100 years and follow the guidelines and rules that have kept aviation safe, we might just be able to convince the public and the government that aviation, and terrorism by aviation, is not the problem.

Terrorism is about perception guys, not about actual risk. What we as the aviation community do, and what the government does, shapes that perception. Far more than that it modifies the actual risk. Right now, with all the senseless and inconsistent security measures, we're heading in the wrong direction.

Supersport

26th Jun 2008, 08:11

SNS3Guppy:

No. security and the future of general aviation really belongs to you, and it doesn't stand a prayer if you don't take it seriously in all it's forms, benefits, blessings, threats, and failures. It's all on you.

Take it seriously. Act accordingly.

I think you may have missed the point.

I don't think there will be many people posting here that don't / won't 'Take it Seriously'. I would suspect most keep there eyes open for anything untoward going on at their home field, I know I do.

As has been said before, most of us Brits are well versed in 'Acts of Terror' and so, in my opinion, the 'fear' being felt here in the UK about terrorism by the general public is pretty flat, especially compared to the mass panic / hysteria / fear that has flooded the USA post 9/11. That much is obvious due to the total over reaction by the numpties that run the USA, the 'War On Terror' :ugh:Lets face it, the mighty USA couldn't be seen to do nothing. Ask yourself this though, what difference has it made?

You have misinterpreted what most contributors have written during this discussion, people are not down playing the current terrorist threat faced by this country, most Londoner's have experienced it first hand.

What people are trying to say is, they are totally pissed off with the current misinformed UK Government and Sensationalist UK Media and the way it USES AVIATION as a scapegoat / whipping boy in order to cause public outcry / upset and to instill the fear of God into the general populus, in order to cast a shadow on MUCH LARGER PROBLEMS. It takes the piss, Enough is Enough.

qwertyplop

26th Jun 2008, 08:41

FFS..!! :ugh:

Most of you are missing the point - the point is not that this will happen but that it might happen and to not address it before it does happen is tantamount to inviting it to happen. It's obvious, you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment. There will be other subjects of interest on this issue no doubt but this week it's GA.

And some of you will go on missing the point up until the point that some legislation is introduced to force you to comply. Take the opportunity to have a debate about it now and not descend into the usual slanging match about nothing in particular.

Remember all this before you fail to file FP's and GAR's correctly with all the details that are required, remember that it's the accuracy of such administration that allows the powers that be to do their job discreetly and without bother to us all.

Why is this so hard?

No Foehn

26th Jun 2008, 09:14

Quote:
After all, the United States were founded by a terrorist insurrection against the legitimate authority. One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter.

Not quite. In the United States, we defeated a tyrant and rejected the king. Hardly terrorist. We simply soundly defeated an undesireable oppressive force and chose freedom over subservient domination. A terrorist wages a campain of fear against the general populace. In the United States we simply kicked mother Britain's butt. There is a certain distinction, with no bearing on the activities of Sinn Fein, the IRA, or Al Qaeda, for that matter.

That's right, exactly what I said. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

airborne_artist

26th Jun 2008, 09:33

Talking about the American public's response to terror, I can remember the near total halt in US tourism to Europe after the US bombed Libya in 1986. Nothing had changed in Europe, of course, but suddenly it was perceived as a dangerous place.

Pace

26th Jun 2008, 09:38

>Most of you are missing the point - the point is not that this will happen but that it might happen and to not address it before it does happen is tantamount to inviting it to happen.<

Life is a risk. If we were all paranoid about what if then none of us would aviate in the first place. We would never set foot in a car or go anywhere. We would stay at home tucked up in bed but even then we might smother in our beds.

Fear can be a terrible thing as people usually do not make rational descisions when motivated by fear and fear has been the basis of many anti terrorist legislations.

Of course there have to be precautions taken to safeguard people from terrorism but my arguement and I am sure the arguement of most here is that Aviation has been made the scapegoat totally out of proportion to equal threat areas.

Any place where there are a gathering of people holds a potential terrorist threat whether that be the London Tube, Pop concerts, ships, Hotels etc etc etc.

Where we see aviation targeted in an unbalanced way is not only unfair to aviation and unfairly loads massive costs on aviation but actually increases the threat of terrorism.

Why? because it takes the attention away from equal threat areas and leads the population into falsely believing that the threat has been dealt with.

Should there ever be another mass terrorist attack and lets pray that never happens then I am sure aviation will NOT be the target as there are so many easier targets which are largely ignored by government or Government closes a blind eye because those potential targets would cause chaos.

Before the attrocities of 9/11 I used to show my CPL and spent hours up front on the flight deck. We can all remember when in the cruise families and their kids were invited to the flight deck to chat to the pilots and this went on for decades.

Now if I travel from London to Paris I take the Eurostar as it takes me 2.5 hrs door to door while using aviation looses me several hours of my day and gets me there frustrated and tired with all the security hassle and crowds.

Pace

Fuji Abound

26th Jun 2008, 09:46

Remember all this before you fail to file FP's and GAR's correctly with all the details that are required, remember that it's the accuracy of such administration that allows the powers that be to do their job discreetly and without bother to us all.

I thought your post a reasonable comment unitl you said this.

VFR FPs have nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. GAR reports are concerned amoung other issues with monitoring the pattern and frequency of traffic movement but provide no protection at all against a light aircraft being used in the way envisaged by the original poster.

As I commented earlier you need to understand that aircraft present a different threat to other conventional means of delivering a weapon. The real concern is an air born weapon which could cause wide spread "damage".

As always we need to weigh in the balance the loss of liberty against the effectiveness of any legislation introduced to curtail this risk.

I am not convinced in that balancing act it is sufficient to claim that there is no historical evidence to suggest x or y necessarily passes muster, in the way that was used in the recent debate of the detention of terrorists. However it is vitally important to demonstrate that any measures introduced will, beyond reasonable doubt, reduce the risk.

Julian

26th Jun 2008, 09:48

Your ability to own firearms, what we call a constitutional right, is so severely curtailed it's pathetic

I am sure that the relatives of the victims in the US in the plastics factory where the guy decided to blow his boss and several of them away that was on news this morning wish you were pathetically curtailed as us at the moment!

Unfortunately with our media at the moment, if we could all carry firearms then I am sure they would see that as an even greater threat as not only are we all flying round in bombs but now we would have the ability to defend ourselves should someone try to stop us in our evil mission!!!!!

J.

wsmempson

26th Jun 2008, 09:58

"Light airplanes are an ideal terrorist weapon. That they may pose little physical danger is really quite irrelevant."

No they're not, and yes it is relevant.

This is about a balanced attitude to risk; It is far easier and more effective to drive a car full of explosives into a shopping precinct and detonate it, or jump on to a crowded underground with a phial of sarin gas, than it is to find a qualified pilot, recruit him, steal an aircraft and then to navigate to somewhere - undetected - to work one's mischief. Surely this report was written by the same people who have driven the campaign for high vis vests - trying to legislate for an event which is highly unlikely, and producing a solution that is highly unsuitable...

Of course as a community we have to be vigilent of suspicious activity, but lets get real here, one form of terrorism is easy to perpetrate almost impossible to prevent and the other is, by comparison, difficult and conspicuous; as a terrorist, which would you go for?

Actually, It's almost possible to start to feel a degree of nostalgia for the IRA - and least, for the most part, they 'phoned up to say that a bomb was about to go off! In retrospect, that seems almost seems civilised.

Pace

26th Jun 2008, 10:20

Qwertplop

>you just happen to be in a field of interest at the moment<

This is just the statement that says it all.

I have no qualms with Aviation being the anti terrorism field of interest this week.

As long as next week its Football stadiums
The week after its the London Tube
The week after Its pop concerts
The week after its ????

But its not its only AVIATION AVIATION AVIATION. That is where this whole thing is wrong and where our industry is being loaded with unfair costs and slowly destroyed.

That is the message Aviation should put out Get off our backs and look at equal terrorist threat targets

Pace

DavidHoul52

26th Jun 2008, 11:32

Have the recent verbose contributors to this thread noted it's thread rating of late(i.e. "Terrible")? The first posts were sensible and refreshing - now it's degenerated into drivel :\

DavidHoul52

26th Jun 2008, 12:12

Right I'll let you experts in international terrorism continue pontificating and go and play outside.:ok:

englishal

26th Jun 2008, 13:00

I haven't bothered to read the last two pages....;)

But regarding terrorism - I DO NOT want to live in a "locked down" country, with new anti terror laws popping up all the time, as knee jerk reactions to some perceived threat. They will NEVER catch them anyway, and all these new laws do is p*ss people off and even turn people against the country.

The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a mastermind plot put together by Bush and his neo conservative buddies for no other reason than energy and hence power and he managed to sucker in Blair - now the world is a much more dangerous place, full stop. I don't blame the USA, just the Bush family and his mates.

In Britain we have had around 52 people killed by these nutters in say a decade, yet draconian new laws have been introduced. To put that in perspective, at least 31 teenagers have died in knife crime THIS YEAR and the annual murder rate runs at about 800 PA. We don't see high impact new laws introduced for these events do we?

The states is even worse, how many nutters have been into a school with an Armalite this decade? yet guns can still be bought in Walmart?

I am not anti USA at all, I love much of the stuff over there, flying in particulal. My wife is American and we live in the UK but she will not return to live in the USA until Bush and the Neo conservatives are gone for good. The UK is not much better either with TBLiars...sorry, GBrowns governement pushing through draconian laws every week. Soon they'll be able to arrest you if you write a post like this on an Internet forum.

Maybe it is time to move......

qwertyplop

26th Jun 2008, 13:37

Fuji Bound

I thought your post a reasonable comment unitl you said this.

VFR FPs have nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. GAR reports are concerned amoung other issues with monitoring the pattern and frequency of traffic movement but provide no protection at all against a light aircraft being used in the way envisaged by the original poster.

It is a reasonable point, the two things can be compared for accuracy in addition to the information contained within the various logs books carried. I'd bet my mortgage there are descrepancies aplenty and omissions of information and/or forms.

Contacttower

26th Jun 2008, 14:13

But its not its only AVIATION AVIATION AVIATION. That is where this whole thing is wrong and where our industry is being loaded with unfair costs and slowly destroyed.

But aviation has often be at the forefront of thoughts on terrorism....simply because it has been the victim of many attacks in the past. Lockerbie saw 270 people dead, 9/11 was pretty 'high profile', then we have Richard Reid, then in the summer of 2006 we are told a major disaster involving up to eight aircraft was narrowly avoided. Pop concerts, the tube or whatever have had their attacks and scares but nothing like aviation.

It is highly regrettable but really not surprising that aviation continues to be a focus.

We shouldn't forget though improvements that have been made in commercial aviation security and the overall reduction (or at least shift to other targets) in aviation related terrorism that they have brought.

Pace

26th Jun 2008, 14:19

David

Ok maybe some of us are letting off steam in this thread but maybe thats more indicative at the frustration experienced by people who love their aviation and can afford to fly less and less as the costs and restrictions mount by the day.

What are we supposed to do in your book "for what we are about to recieve next may the Government make us truly thankful?" I think not.

Pace

Pace

26th Jun 2008, 14:35

ContactTower

I take what you are saying Lockerbie and 9/11 were terrible attrocities and sensible moves need to be made to ensure that neither of those occur again.

But please do not loose the reason for the start of this thread. That was the fact that Lord Carlisle is now showing concern over a Cessna 172 taking off out of a farmers field as a weapon of mass destruction. Hardly a fully loaded 747 and the creation of 3000 extra jobs for some sort of border control When our borders have been open to anyone who cares to make a home here.
The Government dont even have a clue who has settled here.

The fact that The London tube has not been targeted is probably more due to luck as an equal disaster is there in the waiting with NO security checks in place to stop one and that to me is more frightening than the percieved threat of a Cessna 172 and that is where Lord Carlisle should be directing his attention and our money.

Pace

Fuji Abound

26th Jun 2008, 14:46

It is a reasonable point, the two things can be compared for accuracy in addition to the information contained within the various logs books carried. I'd bet my mortgage there are descrepancies aplenty and omissions of information and/or forms.

You may well (bet your mortgage), but whatever discrepancies you find whilst perhaps having something to do with pilots involved in illegal imports they will have nothing to do with a terrorist attack of the type outlined on this thread.

Do you think a terrorist is going to hire, steal or buy an aircraft in France file or not file a GAR and / or file or not file a FP, head for London and explode himself and the aircraft over the PM?

Such a terrorists would need to go back to training camp for a period of retraining.

eltonioni

26th Jun 2008, 15:12

"War on Terror"

Who says that Americans don't do irony. :D

qwertyplop

26th Jun 2008, 15:23

Fuji Bound

You may well (bet your mortgage), but whatever discrepancies you find whilst perhaps having something to do with pilots involved in illegal imports they will have nothing to do with a terrorist attack of the type outlined on this thread.

Do you think a terrorist is going to hire, steal or buy an aircraft in France file or not file a GAR and / or file or not file a FP, head for London and explode himself and the aircraft over the PM?

That's the point Fuji and we've come to it in a very roundabout way, those who would do this type of thing, or indeed any type of criminal activity, would not comply or would seek to falsify records and are, therefore, easier to single out and target as a result of the review of legitimate records. We're all concentraing on the worst case scenario in terms of the utilisation of GA for such purposes but it seems to me the enemy are probing just as much as planning. It's this we need to be aware of. The top echelons of criminal enterprise have, demonstrable, links in some cases to the planning and funding of the type of activity being discussed. This is not a secret, it's a legitimate part of this debate.

Intelligence is not just about specific information, it's also about analysing basic information and records, one presumably then can identify patterns, trends and probabilities.

Perhaps.....?

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth.?

Fuji Abound

26th Jun 2008, 15:33

No, its not the point at all.

An aircraft used in the way suggested on here is not going to be part of any regular traffic pattern, it is not going to be involved in a number of runs to and from France filing false GARs or FPs, in short it is not going to have figured on the radar at all ever.

False GARs and FPs are used to disguise regular flights to and from the continent where the aircraft is being used for smuggling, but nothing more sinister. These records may well be used to identify traffic that conforms to such a pattern of activity.

qwertyplop

26th Jun 2008, 15:39

The defence you put up of GA and the perceived right to freedom of movement is admirable Sir and I actually agree with your points in the main but I feel that you are missing the bigger picture, the potential to abuse is the issue. People are not honest, people seek to hide their intentions and people evade scrutiny wherever possible for any number of reasons.

I support the authorities on this issue and as much as you have to get off your holiday flight from Spain to show a passport and pass through any notion of a border control, why should anyone flying privately be any different?

You have failed to answer the points pertaining to activity in support of such abuses, logistics, recon, funding. It's all connected. It's why the police are out talking to schools and clubs, they are simply trying to find the wheat in amongst the chaff. This 'self policing and self regulating' stuff just does not wash with me any more. What about moving people in to do something domestically? Yes, the axle of a lorry is easier but can you catogorically state that it won't happen in GA? I suspect not.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Best, QP

Contacttower

26th Jun 2008, 15:43

Pace I completely agree with your last post....it does seem worrying that Lord Carlile is concentrating on apparently frivolous threats while there are already plenty other areas that are much more obvious to be dealt with first.

Whatever proposals come out of this though (if any) the most important thing is that measures are implemented after full consultation with representatives of General Aviation and with the broad consent of the private flying community. Something which (if the need arises) AOPA might want to take on...

Pace

26th Jun 2008, 17:29

I am seeing a friend who is a bit "cheeky" for a drink this weekend so will bring this up with him.

Pace

Johnm

26th Jun 2008, 20:54

Having read Lord Carlile's report he expresses a concern about the potential risk in GA. He also indicates that operators are alive to the issue and vigilant. If we continue to be so then we may be left alone, I certainly hope so.

Qwertyplop wroteI support the authorities on this issue and as much as you have to get off your holiday flight from Spain to show a passport and pass through any notion of a border control, why should anyone flying privately be any different?

Avoiding all that airport bureaucracy is one reason why I have an aeroplane of my own. It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming. If you knew anything about security you would know that the criminals' documentation will be in apple pie order, though completely fraudulent:ugh:

That's why vigilance and communication of intelligence is more effective and why the authorities are wise to seek co-operation from the GA community rather than impose excessive regulation which, as this thread shows all too clearly, is likely to be counterproductive.

robin

26th Jun 2008, 22:19

Qwertyplop

I have to disagree with you, as you appear to be rather naive about the proposal.

I fly a very small aircraft that can carry me, fuel and a GPS, If I hit a building, I will be sitting (dead) in a pile of matchwood having bounced off the structure.

Compare this with a Cherokee jeep driving through a doorway at an airport. In fact there are a number of model aircraft that are bigger than my little aircraft and a bomber wouldn't even need to risk his own life to wreck anything

Similarly, if I were to try to blow up anything worthwhile, I would use a SAM missile at any point between Southwark to Heathrow or Heathrow to Windsor.

GA of my sort is not an effective threat in any conceivable way. Someone wanting to fly out of a farm strip would have to have completed the NPPL at least and then worked on strip flying for a bit - that is not the way that terrorists work.

They use low-tech tecniques and do it in the easiest possible way - forget about low end-GA. It is yet another scare story from a government who needs to keep us worried.

Flying Binghi

26th Jun 2008, 22:53

It is yet another scare story from a government who needs to keep us worried

robin, Youve got that right.

We are all aware of the governments intelligent and extremely well thought out response to an earlier terrorist event - INVADE IRAQ :hmm:
..... that helped to calm the fanatics :rolleyes:

RatherBeFlying

27th Jun 2008, 03:38

A recent NOTAM hereabouts disclosed that a UAV 17' long with a 22' wingspan was lurking about at heights up to 700' AGL.

The computer can take care of the flying and the GPS can pinpoint delivery. Takeoff can be done from a deserted parking lot at night.

But that's too much work compared to loading up a car with explosives.

And the jihadis are not about to knock off their best recruiters; so, the occupants of 10 Downing St and the WH have no worries:}

qwertyplop

27th Jun 2008, 07:31

Avoiding all that airport bureaucracy is one reason why I have an aeroplane of my own. It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming. If you knew anything about security you would know that the criminals' documentation will be in apple pie order, though completely fraudulent

I'm not disagreeing with you but it's clear that the authorities are not going to let this continue just because the GA community says 'we're smashing chaps don't you know', you can either work with them or against them, your choice. I choose to listen and support, you may not. The parts of GA you describe have clearly been found to be lacking in oversight, what you are able to purchase to circumnavigate those processes is part of the problem identified. Unfortunate perhaps but that's the way it is, I cannot understand why it's so hard for people to get their head around the notion of potential because that's all that has been identified. No-one has addressed my points about the other aspects of this issue, the potential to traffick individuals to do harm (any harm), the potential to engage in logistical flights in support of something dastardly, recon, delivery systems, et al.

I suspect anyone working against them is simply engaging in a futile struggle that will not carry one iota of public support. Your last point about documentation is interesting however, scrutiny and credibility based questioning is the key to dealing with such issues yet everyone says here that more scrutiny is not needed. All law enforcement investigative questioning techniques are based around the notion of credibility. So, immediately, we are in conflict with conventional investigative techniques.

GA of my sort is not an effective threat in any conceivable way. Someone wanting to fly out of a farm strip would have to have completed the NPPL at least and then worked on strip flying for a bit - that is not the way that terrorists work.

But effective monitoring and engagement reveals the bad eggs, the bad eggs then can be dealt with. GA has a much responsibility here as the authorities, engaging with them is the key IMO. These issue driven agendas drive me mad because they ignore the greater principle of our responsibility to one another and the community around us. GA is a vulnerability like it or not and it's up to us to work with those charged with protecting us, in our little bit of the 'security' world, to mitigate those dangers. The key to this is that 'the powers that be' should be getting out and talking to aviators and getting them onboard. I totally support that idea and it's clearly something they try to do when the summer comes and SB's and Customs staff go out to airfields to speak with the community. Yet then they do this, the same old nonsense comes up in here that all they are doing is wasting taxpayers money on a jolly on a hot day. FFS!! Clearly not the case then as they appear to have been writing reports which were fed back to inform this current proposal.

So, we've already missed one opportunity to inform and engage it would seem.

In my opinion. :)

It seems to me that the issue is rather overblown, there is no apparent intelligence but there is a vulnerability, I think we all agree on that point. And having identified a vulnerability, it should be discussed and dealt with. How it's dealt with is the issue now. Intractability on our side will not deal with this and all that will happen is something will be imposed upon us that we had no say over. I suspect that why the proposal came up in the first place and I most certainly do not believe that now the 'cat's out of the bag' as it were, the best GA can come up with is 'leave us alone because we're self policing and self regulating and we all know each other'. This will undo GA.

As for tubes and cars, I completely agree with these points. :(

Cheers,

QP

Johnm

27th Jun 2008, 07:50

I don't think there's any disagreement between me and qwertyplop in principle. The point is that GA needs to be vigilant and avoid the possibility of being exploited by the baddies.

For most of us the prospect of loss of licence and/or aeroplane is enough deterrent apart from any moral considerations to ensure we keep out of illicit activities. We have seen the occasional bad egg caught drug running and/or people carrying because the relationship between authority and GA is pretty good.

My point is that continued vigilance and co-operation with the authorities in supporting their need for intelligence is by far the most efficient route to dealing with the baddies. Most people in the security services would share this view I think, because they understand that the community has to be their eyes and ears if they are to be successful, simply because they can't be everywhere.

The problem comes from inexperienced ministers and (sadly these days) inexperienced Chief Constables who have a desperate urge to be seen to be doing something, but no idea of what works and what doesn't.

qwertyplop

27th Jun 2008, 07:52

Agreed.

Effective enagement on both sides and 'hearts and minds' work thereafter.

Pace

27th Jun 2008, 10:21

Qwertplop

>I cannot understand why it's so hard for people to get their head around the notion of potential because that's all that has been identified. No-one has addressed my points about the other aspects of this issue, the potential to traffick individuals to do harm (any harm), the potential to engage in logistical flights in support of something dastardly, recon, delivery systems, et al.

I suspect anyone working against them is simply engaging in a futile struggle that will not carry one iota of public support. Your last point about documentation is interesting however, scrutiny and credibility based questioning is the key to dealing with such issues yet everyone says here that more scrutiny is not needed. All law enforcement investigative questioning techniques are based around the notion of credibility. So, immediately, we are in conflict with conventional investigative techniques.<

Potential ? There is a mass of potential everywhere you look "serious threat" is a word that is more appropriate.

I have met many MPs in my time and infact most have one gift and that is the gift of the gab and little else.

There are some very intelligent, very dedicated MPs who are nobodies fool and who research their subject thoroughly and without bias or agenda but there are also many who have their own agendas and regrefully there are some who are influenced by minority pressure groups and the votes they get in the ballot box.

This latest attack on aviation needs to be killed in in tracks as a waste of public money and time. There are far greater "potential threats to the safety of the public from terrorism than GA aircraft.

Please do take the London tube in the rush hour and you will see a massive potential to cause as much damage as 9/11 or Lockerbie and ZERO security to stop it happening.

That is where public money needs to be targeted at not some hair brained further targetting of aviation.

And yes AOPA needs to put this idea to bed as it has on other equally poorly thought out schemes against aviation.

Pace

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

27th Jun 2008, 10:52

It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming.

qwertyplop. Sorry but I couldn't resist noting the irony in that. I dread growing up.

Pace. I find myself largely agreeing with you. My worry isn't the clever, diligent and honest MPs but the hordes of division lobby fodder in the Commons. I also think some influential elements of the Police will latch on firmly to this. As I mentally noted back in '72 (Srl 29), unknown and "unregulated" traffic zipping around outside controlled airspace clearly jarred in the plod mind.

qwertyplop

27th Jun 2008, 12:18

Originally Posted by qwertyplop

It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming.
qwertyplop. Sorry but I couldn't resist noting the irony in that. I dread growing up.

Sorry, not my comment. I cut and pasted it to respond.

Potential ? There is a mass of potential everywhere you look "serious threat" is a word that is more appropriate.

Semantics Sir. I agree with the thrust of the point though.

Squeegee Longtail

28th Jun 2008, 07:14

Check out today's Daily Mail - pages 16/17. The beaurocratic party may now begin and the "free" world may now become less so, I susect. Who is winning this "war"? Stop addressing the symptoms and REALLY go at the cause, otherwise we will end up about as "free" as the average citizen in an extremist Islamic state.

UL730

28th Jun 2008, 07:45

Could it be that Lord Carlile has read an advance copy Tom Cain's new book called The Survivor and over reacted? God help us if he reads The Hunt for Red October.

Anyway The Survivor is going to be on my holiday reading list.

;)

Zulu Mike

28th Jun 2008, 10:34

a short excerpt form a post I made on another forum that may (or may not) be of some interest -

Could you imagine doing this flight now?

29th November 1983 (for those who do not know, at the height of the cold war) on a leg from Compton Abbas to Leavesden (now sadly like so many other airfields in my book either closed, inaccessible or too bloody expensive to even contemplate landing at) which was 8 miles due East of Bovingdon VOR.

If you draw that route on the current South of England map via the BNN VOR you will see that this would take you just to the south of Newbury racecourse. Put that track into GoogleEarth and you will see that it takes you right over the top of a very large disused airfield that even the younger pilots amongst us would (or should recognise the name of) Greenham Common. At that time of course home to the Women’s Peace Camp and more importantly an untold number of nuclear Cruise Missiles, and although we overflew, we didn’t even speak to them, (probably) we were in contact with London Information but we just overflew above the ATZ and not a problem.

Even when our country and indeed the whole world was subjected to perhaps even greater threats than those we face now, common (no pun intended) sense rather than paranoia prevailed. Lord Carlisle please take note you also must remember when we lived in a free country and the defence of those freedoms was not dependent upon the ever encroaching power of and surveillance by the state and the inevitable and subsequent curtailment of our liberty. (Rant now over)

ZM

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 10:51

You can all stop whinging now......

MI5 warns of suicide bombers using ambulances - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4232333.ece)

:ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh:

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 14:55

G-EMMA Wrote:

I hope you realise from this Carlile is trying very hard to clutch at straws and will therefore review your comments on this thread regard the potential of GA aircraft being used by terrorists.

No Sir, I do not see a need to review of my comments. I simply accept a need for oversight, for whatever reason, by the authorities if they deem to have identified a risk. I am happy to to at least debate the issue in an open forum and give an opinion, I cannot offer anything more than that really.

And here's something to consider, if you used any of the things you identified in a suspcious manner, in a public place, and were pinged for doing something that might lead to a view that you were up to no good, you'd be stopped and questioned. That's the bigger issue here G-EMMA and that's the issue that should be debated. If you were on the tube and were spotted concealing a battery pack inside a coke can or a bag of crisps, I expect someone would raise the alarm. And rightly so IMO because it's the environment that's the issue in addition to the act itself, the act of doing that in such an environment is open to question. GA is different because of the control one has over where one can be with the minimum of oversight. It strikes me as a bigger issue than the aircraft itself. It's a combination of things.

But then, playing devils advocate, should a photography student standing outside a tube station taking photos be stopped and searched? And so and so forth.

The cat's out of the bag now and that's the issue. How both sides of the debate deals with this issue in the future when such mindsets exist is the problem GA and the authorities have now.

I still accept the need for oversight however but that's just me, that said, I am very open to the opinions discrediting oversight and the choice of GA as a topic for such oversight.

Best,

QP

Squeegee Longtail

29th Jun 2008, 16:20

Stop for a moment and try to imagine a society where all "possible" terrorist threats are neutralised!

God help us if the likes of Lord whatshisface and QP here get their way. I assume they are both old enough to not have to live too long with the consequences. Some of us will though, and my children even longer.

Big Brother Nanny State has you by the bo!!ocks (not you G-EMMA, obviously!)

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 16:22

Sorry G-EMMA. :ok:

How have you, Squeegee Longtail, come to the conclusion that I am the worst thing for society that has ever existed? What a total overreaction.

All I've said is that monitoring is clearly an issue for the powers that be and that I subscribe to monitoring if it's considered appropriate. Additionally, I also said that there is little I don't disagree with on the other side of the argument but that I'm open to a debate, with the authorities, on this idea. And I'm open because it seems to me that to participate in a debate before something is done is better than all the usual hangwringing after. I also said that there is a threat, and that the threat needs to be assessed and dealt with by the powers that be. It's what they are paid to do and I guess they are doing it.

No-one has answered any point I've made about self regulation and self policing. No-one dealt with logisitics, recce's et al - everyone has seemed to focus on the aircraft being used on a one way trip. All I've heard in response is that you can use a car and a can of coke if you like and that it's a waste of time.

Fine but a least explain why?

Nowhere have I advocated signing away any of my perceived freedoms or liberties. To suggest such a thing is, frankly, offensive.

Pace

29th Jun 2008, 16:48

Qwertplop

>And here's something to consider, if you used any of the things you identified in a suspcious manner, in a public place, and were pinged for doing something that might lead to a view that you were up to no good, you'd be stopped and questioned. That's the bigger issue here G-EMMA and that's the issue that should be debated. If you were on the tube and were spotted concealing a battery pack inside a coke can or a bag of crisps, I expect someone would raise the alarm. And rightly so IMO because it's the environment that's the issue in addition to the act itself, the act of doing that in such an environment is open to question. GA is different because of the control one has over where one can be with the minimum of oversight. It strikes me as a bigger issue than the aircraft itself. It's a combination of things.

But then, playing devils advocate, should a photography student standing outside a tube station taking photos be stopped and searched? And so and so forth.>

You can do what you want on the tubes and no body will bother with you.

Please do take a tube ride on something like the Jubilee line in the rush hour.
You will see hundreds of people,pushing, shoving carrying brief cases, pullying along cases on wheels. These people are every race you can imagine.
One tube train will be packed with equal numbers of people in them as a large airliner and they roll into the tube station every couple of minutes.

You talk of potential forget potential here lies a massive risk. No security, no one questions what you hold in those bags and cases then we look at aviation? The whole thing is a farce!!! Why because the government know only too well that even minimal security on the London Tube system would bring the whole system to a halt and in turn would bring London to a chaotic standstill.

So they pretend that these real risk areas do not exist and target a soft option "aviation" Lord Carlisle worries his pretty little head over whether some tiny little wooden bi plane is going to cause a huge security threat.The poor aircraft would dissolve into a thousand splinters if it hit anything larger than a paper bag.

Then we have irresponsible newspapers like the Daily Mail who employ fiction writers to drum up a fantasy over something they know little about.

Every business jet in Europe is known about. Compared to cars the numbers are miniscule. The authorities know which airports they live in. They know who owns them. I fly as a Captain on business jets. When I turn up at the airport even the security men at the gates know me and who I fly for and I am sure the same goes for all the other Euopean business jets. The owners are known, the jets are usually maintained and operated by long established organisations and every IFR flight is traceable by a simple programme on a computer.

The Daily Mail and other thrill seeking tabloids would do a better service by pointing out the real dangers and threats to the safety and well being of our citizens rather than perpetuating the rubbish and scaremongering that churned out by government and the press.

Pace

IO540

29th Jun 2008, 17:58

I am no nuclear weapon expert, though I have read a lot of stuff that has been declassified in recent decades, and the obvious Q to ask is:

If it is so apparently easy to get one's hands on a bomb, why is the UK, America, and a few other places (like Israel) still standing?

The IRA would have absolutely loved to blow up Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, etc. But they never managed anything like it.

The Muslim terrorists are much better funded than the IRA ever was, and they still haven't done this - yet there is zero doubt they would do this in an instant. Not a sovereign state, overtly (that would just cause some ICBM launches, wiping it off the map an hour later) but terrorists.

I think that building a bomb is simply much harder than people think. The simple designs are big and heavy (tons) and one would need something bigger than a bizjet to carry it. And it needs a lot of material which - in that volume - doesn't fall off the back of a lorry - not even at BNFL. The sophisticated compact designs are ... sophisticated and difficult to build, and those who have the designs have exactly zero interest in leaking them because the result could be used against them next. And you certainly cannot find the designs for the latter type on google. Not working designs.

If it was that easy, the things would be going off all over the place - delivered by vehicles.

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 18:09

At the risk of repeating myself - I don't disagree with you at all. I totally agree with everything you say.

And yes - it could be construed as unfair and singling out a certain section of society for attention but all of the areas you discribe do not have any degree of regulation over them, you don't need to do anything to ride the tube or a bus. Hence the undue amount of CCTV and other overt and covert surveillance measures aimed at users of these services. Is it right or is it wrong? Not for me to say.

Part of this I think is the idea that the government could be criticised if something were to happen where a degree of regulation and oversight exist, GA is an example unfortunately. It's all very well identifying a risk but what did you do about it is the question that would be asked when the balloon goes up.

Road traffic is monitored, ANPR is everywhere now, you can be grassed up by your mobile phone that gives your position away to 10 feet, you appear on camera approx 300 times a day in London as a pedestrian I read somewhere recently, you cannot leave or enter the UK without someone knowing you've done it. You can send emails that are traced etc. And that's just the stuff that exists to benefit the private sector, one can only imagaine what the government has at it's disposal.

I think if you analyse what is going on generally in terms of state control in the UK, you'll see very quickly, and acknowledge, that GA is the last bastion of more decent and trusting times but it's the most decent and trusting of us that ultimately get's done over by the cads.

'We're self policing and self regulating' cannot cut it anymore, sad but true I'm afraid.

And that's something worth discussing.

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 18:18

G-EMMA wrote:

OK qwertyplops, lets throw the argument back your way -

Take the club I fly at.

I need to have flown within the last 28 days to be current before I can get near an aeroplane.

I plan a terrorist attack, lets say we are going to fill a PA-28 with explosives and fly it into some soft target.

I have to have a licence, a medical, the ability to fly the aeroplane, navigate accurately and the weather has to be good for VFR else I will be in IMC and crash any way. Or I need an instrument rated pilot to do the deed for me.

So I have all of this and somehow in the view of the entire club and any members of the public I have to load the aircraft with said explosives... have you not realised yet that the whole scenerio is pure fantasy. I doubt if you have ever been around light aircraft as your entire argument is based from some entirely hyperthetical stance that a light aircraft could be used by terrorists. Yes it could, but it isn't likely and isn't practical. Terrorists could also dump azo dyes in the London water supply, that hasn't happened either and I doubt anyone would suggest that nobody use tap water just in case it did one day. Terrorists could hijack and strategically place fuel tankers under all the major intersections leading into London and blow them up... hmmmmm lets ban tankers or at least make them fill in a form before they can go on the road (or do they already???)

Terrorist acts are aimed to have an affect on the whole nations sense of security and lifestyle, I do not see light aircraft as a likely tool, neither do I see any way of sensibly preventing the possibility that they could be used anymore than I believe that the tube could be sensibly protected other than by permenantly shutting it down, best ban buses as well as the ex service vehicles...

The point is lots of things could be done by terrorists and to mitigate all of them gives you Squeegee Longtail's point. What a horrendous world it would be to live in. Safeguard one and the terrorist will turn to another.

The only reason GA is being highlighted is that it will be dead easy to mandate any silly restrictions the government can dream up and probably we will also have to pay for the administration in the process, all for a percieved threat that never existed anymore than any other. You still couldn't stop a terrorist purchasing a light aircraft and flying it out of a strip could you? So it will be all those that posed no risk that will suffer the consequences with no real reduction in the potential 'threat'. (which in my opinion only exists in fantasy) Today 18:58

Why the need to be so patronising G-EMMA?

You fly a light aircraft and all of a sudden you are an expert on national security and intelligence? With the greatest of respect, you and I know as much as the Daily Mail tells us about these things, we all do.

Why, as I keep saying, are you focusing on simply the aircraft as a method of delivery? There are so many more angles to this. You are missing the point with respect, the point is that the debate is upon us and it's time to make sensible points to the right people. Just because your club does things in a certain way and that they are all decent folks does not mean a thing anymore. That's the reality of this issue. How can this have passed you by?

Trying to belittle me for simply saying 'I get it' is pointless. :ugh:

I have given an opinion, it's unlikely to change, and that's that. :)

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 18:43

Well, to be honest G-EMMA, your comment about being around an aircraft grated a bit and if you can dole it out then you have to be able to take it. :)

And now I find myself dragged into a disagreement which was the last thing I wanted. It's an emotive issue and I accept that and please believe me when I say that I actually agree with most of what you say. As for joining the 'thought police' - I don't think they could afford me.

Have a good evening. :ok:

robin

29th Jun 2008, 19:33

Qwetryplop

I can undertstand your position, but, as an aged pilot, have little sympathy with it.

There are a lot of people out there who are prepared to give up on their civil rights because they have been persuaded that by doing so, they will make the world a safer place

Rot.....

There is absolutely no point in playing the government's game, as they are generally a bunch of amateurs, scared to death about losing a single civilian life. The fact that over a hundred military deaths have been caused by their failure to behave in what any rational person would consider acceptable is glossed over.

Sh*t happens. If an asteroid were to hit central London that is fate. During the last war death was a daily experience and people accepted it - unfair though it may be.

Our current bunch of politicos (and those never exposed to the death and suffering of war) are scared rigid of losing access to their Internet access or of having their credit card cloned. They have lost all sense of perspective.

But what scares me most of all, as someone who works daily with massive UK databases, is the way that people are surrendering their right to a personal life, unencumbered by government overview.

You, Qwertyplop, seem to have been convinced that the threat (unquantified and unjustified) is so great that you are prepared to give up on what we consider is so good about our lives in the UK.

I am prepared to stand up to this Stalinist control-freakery - I hope that others are

qwertyplop

29th Jun 2008, 19:53

Robin wrote;

You, Qwertyplop, seem to have been convinced that the threat (unquantified and unjustified) is so great that you are prepared to give up on what we consider is so good about our lives in the UK.

Thank you Robin for the response. I am not convinced actually, far from it.

But in the same way that I am not convinced by the governments position, I am far from convinced by the GA position of 'we're awfully nice chaps don't you know'.

And I completely agree with your view on military deaths and, from my own point of view, the stupidity and vanity shown by faceless cowards sending men and women to their deaths, badly equipped in ill thought through and conceived misadventures, is criminal. I'd put New Labour in the dock for that if I could. In fact, we are relocating to New Zealand just because of much of what has been written here, we concluded much of this some time ago so let me be clear on that too.

But I have faith in those who would protect me. I have faith in the police and the security services, I trust them more than I would ever trust the government. That might make me naive but they, like our armed forces, are there because of duty and obligation and I see it as my duty to assist them wherever possible to counter a threat they are clearly convinced exists on whatever level.

We are a divided society, much of which is the governments fault but I am clear in my responsibility to my fellow citizen and this is manifested by my belief that I should assist wherever possible in this issue.

robin

29th Jun 2008, 20:46

But I have faith in those who would protect me. I have faith in the police and the security services, I trust them more than I would ever trust the government. That might make me naive but they, like our armed forces, are there because of duty and obligation and I see it as my duty to assist them wherever possible to counter a threat they are clearly convinced exists on whatever level.

I wish I shared your view, but being an old b*st*rd and having seen the way that those in any form of authority behave, I have little faith

Take the situation of the army being sent into Heathrow after a security alert. The reality is there is 17 miles between Central London and the airport where someone could lauch an RPG or SAM missile and guarantee bringing it down. Yet the Army went into the centre of Heathrow where you can't see an aircraft at all.

Obviously it was PR to show they were doing something.

They are likely to use Lord Carlile's concerns to wind up the politicos who know b*gg*r all. If you want more resources or more authority tell the idiot MPs that there is a credible threat and hope they don't ask difficult questions - they don't usually

Politicos like this sort of thing as it means they can grab more power

As I said earlier, sh*t happens and an engine-out, like the recent Heathrow incident can happen with, or without terrorist help. Politicos need to accept this and accept that a certain number of people are likely to be killed or injured through any form of incident.

They can't know everything and one day the bad guys will get through. It is wrong for them to pretend that they can stop any and all threats. And it is more grown-up of us to accept that life itself is a risk

The problem is that we, as a people, are colluding with the rulers who want to make life more repressive on the promise that all will be well if we give up our civil liberties

If we do so, we will never get them back, and a regime, such as that in Zimbabwe, could use these laws to destroy any and all protections we enjoy.

Johnm

29th Jun 2008, 21:59

I'm with robin on this one. All I require of Her Majesty's Government is that they leave me alone to get on with my life. I am well aware that the world is a risky place, but frankly I'd prefer to manage that risk without their help.

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 06:33

Robin wrote;

I wish I shared your view, but being an old b*st*rd and having seen the way that those in any form of authority behave, I have little faith

Take the situation of the army being sent into Heathrow after a security alert. The reality is there is 17 miles between Central London and the airport where someone could lauch an RPG or SAM missile and guarantee bringing it down. Yet the Army went into the centre of Heathrow where you can't see an aircraft at all.

Obviously it was PR to show they were doing something.

They are likely to use Lord Carlile's concerns to wind up the politicos who know b*gg*r all. If you want more resources or more authority tell the idiot MPs that there is a credible threat and hope they don't ask difficult questions - they don't usually

Politicos like this sort of thing as it means they can grab more power

As I said earlier, sh*t happens and an engine-out, like the recent Heathrow incident can happen with, or without terrorist help. Politicos need to accept this and accept that a certain number of people are likely to be killed or injured through any form of incident.

They can't know everything and one day the bad guys will get through. It is wrong for them to pretend that they can stop any and all threats. And it is more grown-up of us to accept that life itself is a risk

The problem is that we, as a people, are colluding with the rulers who want to make life more repressive on the promise that all will be well if we give up our civil liberties

If we do so, we will never get them back, and a regime, such as that in Zimbabwe, could use these laws to destroy any and all protections we enjoy.

I think that most of us, especially those whose general outlook is humanitarian, believe in notions similar to those Plato spoke of in Republic - that is: (a) an equal distribution of the burden of citizenship, i.e. of those limitations of freedom which are necessary in social life; (b) equal treatment of the citizens before the law, provided, of course, that (c) the laws show neither favour nor disfavour towards individual citizens or groups or classes; (d) impartiality of the courts of justice; and (e) an equal share in the advantages (and not only in the burden) which membership of the state may offer to its citizens. Individualism can counter these notions yet it is indvidualism that has stopped the British people from standing up and arguing the toss over any of the notions we've covered in this thread. We don't stand together, we don't support one another. We are factional and place self interest over the greater good. Perhaps it's time we, as a people, reviewed this methodology.

So, it seems to me, these ideals are slowly being eroded away if one compares them to what is happening in the UK today more generally in favour of some twisted notion that offers me more protection but at the cost of my civil liberties - I agree - this is not acceptable either.

No-one asked me if I was happy to appear on CCTV everyday, no-one asked me if I wanted my number plate scanned 20 times a day and nobody asked me if I wanted all of my electronic mails stored for months/years. On the other hand, who have I bothered to challenge over any of these issues? We all know the answer to that.

I agree that sh*t happens but IMO this issue is different in the sense that there is more to it than a simple domestic agenda of control, it relates to harm reduction in any numbers of criminal activity in an area where there might lot's of regulations from the CAA et al but where there is little overt control from the law enforcement agencies.

A hurridly filled in GAR with half the details missing and no-one checking with a Mk1 eyeball that the person declared on board is the person flying. How can that be acceptable?

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

30th Jun 2008, 06:56

qwerty plop

you said: and have already been quoted on this above

"But I have faith in those who would protect me. I have faith in the police and the security services, I trust them more than I would ever trust the government. That might make me naive but they, like our armed forces, are there because of duty and obligation and I see it as my duty to assist them wherever possible to counter a threat they are clearly convinced exists on whatever level."

you cleary believe in the nanny state.....
I don't
Pilots tend to be a fairly individualistic bunch - they have some character, whereas you seem to be a "grey" to me in the John Major sense. Or in the sense when mother says to the young child - "don't play in the garden Tasmin, you might get dirty and we wouldn't want you getting dirty now, would we dearest sweet child of mine."

3000 people die on the roads every year - you need to get GA in proportion to the carnage on the roads. and this 3000 deaths a year is despite the CCTV, and ANPR systems you mention.

my plane could be used as a bomb
it doesn't require a key to start it up
you don't need a key to get in the cockpit
it carries over a ton of fuel
and could go into the side of any major building in London before any jets from east anglia had much of a chance to react.
but I am not suicidal - let alone a terrorist.

try something a little dangerous in your life - try playing a bit of rugby in the front row. drink 10 pints of guiness. have a dodgy prawn curry at the local indian. get off with that minging woman who has been making "eyes" at you.

less intusion into peoples' every day lives thx. all this snooping that you advocate has be used (as the daily mail points out) to snoop on the real villains of society who litter the street, park illegally, and put the wrong sort of rubbish in their bins.

you need to get a life qwerty plop.
and a new name.
(although I can hardly talk there....but at least mine has some background to it)

astir 8

30th Jun 2008, 07:39

There was an article in the press yesterday detailing how used ambulances, police cars etc can be bought for trivial sums and could also be stuffed with explosives and driven past security.

There have been articles in the past about how a bomb could be put in a boat, driven up the Thames and detonated outside parliament without coming to the notice of the single river police boat on duty.

i.e. for anyone not actually carrying a largeblack cannonball shaped object labelled "bomb" with a fizzing fuse into central London (come to think of it, would anyone take the cannonball seriously?), there are an infinite number of alternative bomb delivery systems. Can we seal off the world against them all?

No.

Be careful, fine, but ultimately fear of all the innumerable things which could happen will strangle everyday life if allowed (or promoted by the media). So f*** the doom and gloom merchants. Let's get on with life.

Look at what's already been done to children's activities by the fear industry -I'm bloody glad that I was a kid when I was allowed out by myself all day, climbed trees, drove tractors, used power tools and got up to no good, mostly at risk to myself!:ok::ok::ok: And survived!:D:D

mm_flynn

30th Jun 2008, 08:33

Much as I disagree with qwerty and find the general concept of the risk around GA as articulated by Lord Carlislie to be woefully lacking in proportionality, I do think we in GA need to take reasonable basic steps.
my plane could be used as a bomb
it doesn't require a key to start it up
you don't need a key to get in the cockpit
it carries over a ton of fuel

Although the odds of the plane being boosted are probably small, unless it is parked in a locked hanger, a secure field (i.e. RAF xxx), or some other security is applied - I think aircraft should at least have some basic security.

Most people, after an incident, would find it surprising and bordering on negligent that an expensive, reasonably dangerous piece of kit was left parked up with not even minimal attempts at securing it against operation.

The incident could be as minor as a couple of kids crashing it while taxing around the field. (apologies if it is stored in a manor which makes this improbable)

BackPacker

30th Jun 2008, 09:10

(come to think of it, would anyone take the cannonball seriously?)

I think it was about a year ago when somebody left a box clearly labeled "verdacht pakketje" ("suspicious packet") at Utrecht Central Station, which is the main train hub in the Netherlands. I think it had a mechanical (ticking) alarm clock inside as well. This was clearly intended as a prank, not to be taken seriously.

This brought train traffic throughout the Netherlands to a standstill, because the police did take it seriously, stopped all train traffic going through the station (which had a knock-on effect throughout the country), evacuated the station and spent three to four hours investigating.

A lot of people were late for dinner that night.

So a large cannonball shaped object with an actual fizzing fuse? I don't think they're going to take any chances.

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 09:17

D Sqn wrote

you cleary believe in the nanny state.....

I most certainly do not Sir. What I don't accept or can reconcile is this idea of self regulation and self policing as it exists now.

You might argue it works just fine as it is now given nothing has happened thus far but the focus of everyone's points seems to be around the notion of delivery not the idea that harm can come from any number of associated uses. And it does not mean that I am prepared to roll over and have my tummy tickled by the state, it means I am prepared to listen and then make an informed decision over what level of this concerns me and my subsequent behaviour.

Look at Sri Lanka for example and see that in recent times a proscribed group in the UK have utilised light aircraft for securing their ends. This group is active in the UK and only several weeks ago, members were arrested in the UK.

More time to quiz LTTE suspects arrested in UK British authorities have been granted extra time until next Tuesday to quiz three LTTE suspects arrested last week as part of an investigation into the LTTE, BBC reported yesterday (May 1).

Two of the men, aged 39 and 46, were arrested in raids in Powys, Wales and a third, aged 33, in south-west London.

All three are being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

They are being questioned at the high-security Paddington Green police station in central London.

Might this sort of thing throw a new light on this issue? A well established migrant community, a war overseas, a group proscribed in the UK and tactics that take in the very notion we are discussing and a regulatory framework which even the most hardend GA advocate could pick to pieces. The issue is not just one of domestic security.

I accept that the state may well overract on much of this, I've said all along that I agree with much of what has been written but we also should be mindful of the greater world in which we live.

try something a little dangerous in your life - try playing a bit of rugby in the front row. drink 10 pints of guiness. have a dodgy prawn curry at the local indian. get off with that minging woman who has been making "eyes" at you.

In fact D Sqn - who has not done these things? I would not trust a man who had claimed to be free of these rites of passage.

I am very happy with my life thanks and my name has anticednce if it actually matters. In fact, I would ask that you focus on the debate and leave the name calling at the door.

ShyTorque

30th Jun 2008, 10:27

There is absolutely nothing to fear. The government, who are completely competent in these matters, have put restricted areas over central London. No terrorist would dare to fly in them. Lie easy in your beds, we're saved. God bless the government.

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 10:47

:ugh:

It must just be me.

Why is EVERYONE focusing on ONE particular method and ignoring EVERY other possible use of an aircraft? Does it suit them to ignore that part of the debate?

MM Flynn wote that he disagrees with me on something or other when all I've said is that a debate around reasonable measures with the authorities is all that I agree with and that after that debate, if I'm convinced, then I would go along with what I was asked to do. I'm not all that sure what's unreasonable about that given he/she said virtually the same thing.

MM Flynn said;

Most people, after an incident, would find it surprising and bordering on negligent that an expensive, reasonably dangerous piece of kit was left parked up with not even minimal attempts at securing it
against operation.

I think I've said something similar to this as well - that is - after an event took place and the recriminations begin - the question will be asked: 'You knew there was a risk, what did you do about it?'

What's the answer folks? 'Yes there was a risk but we're all nice chaps don't you know and it's awfully rude to ask someone what they are up to when it's none of my business - anyway another pink gin anyone'?

If I'm coming across as flippant, I apologise. But I am repeatedly being attributed for comments I did not make in a context I have not alluded to.

The more I read here, the more out of touch somebody becomes. Whether it's me or the majority of you is debatable but while we debate, Rome burns and something will be forced upon GA that we had the chance to deal with and contribute to.

Astonishing guys. :ugh:

fireflybob

30th Jun 2008, 10:52

Quote: Helen Keller on Security

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. . .Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. . . Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
- Helen Keller, deafblind American author, activist and lecturer

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 11:59

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby

Judy Garland - 1939

I wish I lived here but we don't. Platitudes are meaningless.

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 12:15

Yes G-EMMA, that'll be it.

Read the thread properly why don't you and comment when you've understood the issue enough to be concise in your own points instead of misrepresenting my comments.

Thank you. :D

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 13:04

G-EMMA Wrote

The way you are going qp people will react the same way every time a light aircraft goes overhead. I have read the whole thread. You keep contradicting yourself on the one hand stating that control over everything we do is unacceptable on the other that you will facilitate that control in every way you can and those that don't agree with you (the majority) live with the cuckoos. I suggest the mods send this one off to JET BLAST and the attention seeking troll with it.

What a thoroughly unpleasant way to go about debating G-EMMA. When the point cannot be discredited or debated, discredit the person. You must be very proud of yourself. :D I am asking you publically to stop misquoting me and attributing comments to me out of context. It's rather tiresome frankly. I respect your opinion, whether I agree or not, it's a dying courtesy in this country though. The last word is more important to some than the sensible and respectful interaction of people with, ultimately, the same interests.

There is no contradiction from me, the contradiction lies between the responsibilities of the individual and the state and it the highlights the juxtapostion of those positions. It highlights the difference of position between any number of people with an interest in this subject.

Therefore you cannot have read it with respect, if you had you would have seen that I am having trouble reconciling the need for privacy against the need for security, it's the most relevent part of this debate IMO, and this issue exists in any part of the 'security' debate you'd care to have. This is articulated by my acceptance of the criticism that has been levelled at the notion as it was raised orginally by Lord Carlile. On the other hand, I can see the inadequecy of the law enforcement oversight as it exists now. They are two part of the same issue.

Whether you agree with Carlile or not is your business but to insult a fellow forumite for trying to have a debate on the subject is really rather poor show - I thought people here were made of better stuff than the rest of the riff raff out there.

Perhaps I was wrong. :cool:

ShyTorque

30th Jun 2008, 13:23

Can someone wake me up when this is over, please.... :zzz:

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 13:26

Of course.

Let's sleep through all this and hope it goes away. :zzz:

It won't but if it makes you all feel better. :ugh:

:yuk:

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 15:17

Not at all. Nice response.

wsmempson

30th Jun 2008, 16:59

Did you know that demonstrating an interest in Judy Garland is tantamount to dressing like the motorcycle cop from the Village People, and hanging around in bars with other 'rufty-tufty' men....?

Even in the 1940's, the question "are you a friend of Dorothy's?" was a way of finding out something other than whether someone liked musicals.

Just thought you ought to know, before you get into trouble...
:hmm:

PompeyPaul

30th Jun 2008, 18:49

Why do so many threads on pprune end up in boring, pointless bickering ?
Even more strangely, why does it always seem to be the same people involved ?

chrisbl

30th Jun 2008, 19:01

Another target and frankly more credible

MI5 warns of suicide bombers using ambulances - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4232333.ece)

No one says no to an ambulance.

Squeegee Longtail

30th Jun 2008, 19:12

...that's the way of the world. Human nature. That's what has caused all this sh!t in the first place.

shortstripper

30th Jun 2008, 20:07

What's this country coming too? I remember when a bank manager made the decision to lend rather than a computer, and when a policeman could give you a clip around the ear an threaten to tell your Dad! Now we have rules on rules, made by idiots who know little of what they legislate against!

Every couple of years I have Special Branch and a customs man come around and ask if anything has changed at my strip (ie, new aircraft/owners ect). They seem quite reasonable blokes and surely intelligent enough to be able to assess what threat my little outfit represents. Surely this has to be good enough? Anything more would be insulting their intelligence .... just as a bank manager must now feel rather maginalised by the computer that tells him/her who he can lend too!

SS

Pace

30th Jun 2008, 20:35

Something has been achieved through this thread. The fact that the thread has a thumbs down puzzles me a lot for an aviation forum where we are supposed to defend our love especially against unfair, unequal and damaging attack.

Just to tell you what has been achieved through this thread. Lembit Opik has agreed after a talk with me today to find out what Lord Carlisle is trying to achieve and to put his full efforts into defending GA from further unfounded interferance.

That is all I can say for now but will report back through these forums when things become clearer.

In any lengthy thread where passions are involved and where a sense of injustice comes through people will get personal. I am sure we are all big enough to see through that.

Pace

qwertyplop

30th Jun 2008, 20:56

I'm glad someone has bothered to comment that it's the usual suspects who are incapable of sensible debate, it's put me off posting in here before now and I see nothing to change that opinion.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

And what the frak is wrong with Judy Garland then? I'm off to listen to some Bronski Beat. :)

Pace

30th Jun 2008, 21:28

Qwertyplop

I can see you are a gentleman and hold your own views which are commenadable. Do you fly ? are you a pilot? do you love aviation?

Part of the love of aviation is the freedom of flight and for those of us who post here freedom is important.

I will use the Green issue to describe a concern and a lack of trust in the motives of the legislators.

We mostly know that 38 % of global warming is created by people living in homes and working in factories. Heat coming out of homes! I could respect a government who started piling millions into making houses more efficient. A government who invested millions into encouraging people to conserve energy.

What happened? The first thing Gordon Brown did was to slap a £5 Green tax on aviation. Why simply so he could claw back more revenue under the pretence that he was saving the planet and most of the moves made under the banner of Green involved taxes for extra revenue under the pretence of "its not our fault we are increasing taxes we are saving the planet."

I could even respect a Government that used those taxes to plough billions into making jet engines clean but I do not respect a government who cheat to fill their coffers.

In the same way I can respect a Government who identify a serious Terrorist threat and deal with it.

But I do not respect a government who have one rule for one and ignore the rest and who use the blanket of terrorism to achieve some other aim which has nothing to do with terrorism?

The London tubes are a major Terrorist threat but the Government ignores that as to difficult to deal with and unfairly persists in targeting Aviation.

One rule for one, one rule for all and a sense of fairness is all I expect.

And unlike you I do not trust the motives behind some of these ideas. Call me cynical ? ok.

Probably some police chief wants 3000 new officers in a new department and the funding to create them so has to show a need? So a bit of scaremongering and targeting and the funds become available? but then I am a cynic.

But anyway I am sure your motives are good and wish you all the best in New Zealand.

Pace

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 10:20

Quote from Lord Stevens:

There are an estimated 8,500 private aircraft and up to 500 "landing sites" in Britain. However, there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off

Sadly Lord Stevens seems to be clambering on to the Carlisle bandwagon - very depressing if you think about what manner of restriction regimes they are currently dreaming up. He also appears to have carried out absolutely zero research into the facts so this is becoming a cross party political torch which could have disastrous consequences for us pilots !

Below is a letter I sent back to the Telegraph which hopefully will be published. I will also be emailing AOPA to see if they can tackle Stevens direct !

Drambuster

Sir,

Lord Steven’s recommendations for a “Border Protection Service for the UK: Policy Proposals” is highly misleading with regard to the risk of entry into the UK by light aircraft. As a light aircraft pilot I can advise that the comments in your report that “there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off” is completely inaccurate and raises the question as to how much research Lord Stevens actually carried out.

The facts are that any light aircraft crossing an international boundary within Europe has to file a Flight Plan that states your point of departure and arrival. Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements. A pilot colleague of mine who failed to stop at the stipulated destination and in fact continued to a small strip was met by a black Police helicopter and had a lot of explaining to do.

In addition to the Flight Plan, the pilot in command has to file, in advance, a “General Aviation Report” which provides full details of all those on board including name, address, passport numbers, date/time/place of departure and arrival back into the UK. This report is faxed to Customs and Immigration and I would say that on around 80% of flights back to the UK we are met by an Immigration officer.

There is also full cooperation between the flying clubs, the members and the authorities to the extent that any suspicious movements would be reported within minutes. These airfields are also covered with ‘plane spotters’ carrying long lens cameras and their members association has a ‘reporting agreement’ in place with Immigration and the Police. A few years ago it might have been possible to sneak into the country, but not now.

So, Lord Stevens, get your facts right or these sensationalist headline grabbing proposals will end up with General Aviation being over controlled for no good reason. Presumably you will then move on to restrict the sailing fraternity to wreak havoc with another pleasurable pastime. You need to bear in mind that your over reaction is exactly what our terrorist foes are hoping to achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Islander2

1st Jul 2008, 10:55

Whatever your views, in taking Lord Stevens to task it perhaps would have been wise to bear in mind that, aside from having been a Commissioner of Police, he is a highly experienced GA pilot with more than 2,000 hours in sailplanes, SEPs, MEPs and jets.

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 11:32

Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me. If Lord Stevens is a pilot he should know better ! He has advised the general public that there is no control whatsoever on GA aircraft entering the UK which is complete tosh and the record should be corrected.

However, I don't think my voice stands for much and so I'm pleased to say that Martin Robinson of AOPA has gone into bat (see their letter below to the Home Secretary. Something similar will be on its way to Stevens pointing out the existing controls on GA movements):

Dear . . . [Drambuster]

Thank you for your email.

Martin has asked me to send you a copy of a letter he wrote to Jacqui Smith on this subject (which I attach) . Martin will be writing to Lord Stevens today.

Hope this helps!!

Pam Stevenson

AOPA letter to Jacqui Smith:

24th June 2008

The Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Globe House
6th Floor
89 Ecclestone Square
London SW1V 1PN

Dear Home Secretary

In the UK the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association represents the interests of people who engage in flying general aviation aircraft – a role that we have fulfilled since 1965.

Whilst we agree with the Government on the need for all citizens to remain vigilant, I am very concerned about some of the views currently being expressed by Lord Carlisle, and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Lord Carlisle has never taken the time to interview me or any other officer of the Association with a view to taking evidence – maybe this is because we were informed that light aircraft (less than 5700kgs) do not pose any significant threat.

Since 9/11 AOPA has worked with and continues to work with Security and Customs agencies. Through the “GA excellence” group we are engaged in eBorder discussions and believe this is the right way forward.

AOPA has always stated that our members need to be the eyes and ears of security, reporting anything out of the ordinary. It was poor intelligence that led to 9/11 and therefore the wider you can spread the intelligence gathering net, the better. Make the GA community part of the solution and not part of the problem.

However, our concern relates to the poor coordination that exists between police forces, customs and security agencies. Whilst there has been some improvements made it is, in my view, not robust enough and further improvements are still needed. Hopefully the ACPO is addressing this issue.

GA is worth £1.4billion to the UK economy annually and whilst we remain vigilant on security matters light aircraft are unlikely to be used as “vehicle bombs” any more than a Ford Transit.

If the terrorists involved in 9/11, who had been learning to fly in light aircraft, believed that they could have made a big impact using such aeroplanes they would never have bothered hijacking airliners. The simple fact is that light aircraft do not have the kinetic energy.

To date there has never been any specific advice from Government to our organisation. The freedom of individuals and security of the nation is important to all of us but we need to get the balance right. AOPA is committed to working with all relevant agencies to ensure we achieve the correct level of security oversight. An industry code of practice might be a good starting point

I am available for discussion at your convenience.

Yours sincerely

Martin Robinson
Chief Executive AOPA UK
Deputy Regional Vice President Europe

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 11:53

. . . and a further email on the matter from Martin Robinson. I suggest that anyone not already a member of AOPA should sign up !

From: Martin Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 July 2008 12:43
To: . . . . . .

Subject: RE: Lord Stevens report on terrorist threat to UK via GA

Dear [Drambuster],

Thank you . I have today written to Lord Steven offering him a chance to read my letter to the Home Secretary following the Telegraph article and a chance to meet . What you say in your letter is 100% correct and we must fight any over reaction by Government. Interestingly the Government has said that there is no evidence to support any significant threat coming from GA a point that we endorse. However we must make sure that the Public image of what we do in GA is not affected by outrageous comments from people who should know better.

Regards

Martin

Fuji Abound

1st Jul 2008, 11:53

It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.

Firstly I am pleased to see that AOPA are involved in this issue and Marin has taken the trouble to write.

However, and as ever, I think it is vital letters such as this should be factually correct.

It is not true to say that AOPA represents the interests of people involved in GA flying. AOPA is one of a number of representative bodies and at that in terms of the number of members by far and away not the largest. On an issue such as this I would have thought a joint response from the major representative bodies would have been useful and more importantly would have carried far greater weight.

Why is it that our representative bodies appear to strive to bat on their own wicket on matters that are of vital interest to everyone involved with private aviation? I cannot imagine why a "select committee" drawn from all the major players could not be established that would be briefed with dealing with issues such as this where I imagine their would be a single common goal.

The letter implies there is a lack of co-ordination between the Customs, police force and security agencies. Whilst I have no idea whether or not that statement is true, it seems a dangerous allegation to lay at the Governments door unless you are able to give some examples, in which case the letter should do so.

I wonder why the letter ends with "I am available for discussions etc". This in itself is defeatists. I would far rather something more positive and pro-active.

I could comment further.

Never the less well done for writing in the first place.

Pace

1st Jul 2008, 14:17

>It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.<

Who are the other organisations who have defended aviation issues with the success of AOPA ?

Pace

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 14:33

Fuji

While AOPA may not be perfect, I think they do a pretty good job for the resources available. They were quick to respond to Lord Stevens article in the Telegraph today and, for all we know, Martin Robinson may well be in contact with the private jet brigade (whoever their body is) to cover a joint approach.

However, the target that I think Stevens and Carlisle are lining up are the Headcorns, Pophams, White Walthams etc. Not Farnborough, Biggin Hill and the like as they are already well covered with security.

Whatever your differences may have been with them in the past, I believe now is the time for the GA fraternity to throw their weight behind AOPA as this can only strengthen our position (more revenue will deliver more resource as the high pressure workload on MR's shoulders never ceases to amaze me - another couple of aviation activists on their payroll means a bigger voice!)

One of the reasons I am becoming increasingly concerned is that I have just returned from a GA trip to Denmark and Sweden (I can highly recommend Gotland, by the way!) and have become convinced of a long term anti-GA trend. While at Bromma airport (the second main Stockholm airport) I was advised that ALL airfields around their capital are to be shut in the next few months with the exception of Bromma (their Biggin Hill) and Arlanda (their Heathrow). All the lovely grass GA strips are to be the casualty of political pressure and the locals can't wait to see them gone ! Quite simply GA in Sweden just lost its voice and they have now reached a tipping point. (all GA is going to be based at Bromma which is far from ideal as this will have to mix in with business jets which will take priority).

We therefore must pull together and tackle the 'security' and 'green' brigades with a strong GA voice - and I believe AOPA are the best people to carry this torch !

Pace

1st Jul 2008, 15:08

>Can someone wake me up when this is over, please.... <

Drambuster the above snippet was from someone bored with the discussions here. Maybe he should have added "when I do wake up there will be no GA"?

I agree with your sentiments and feel that we have reached a point where enough is enough. If we do not stand up but lie on our backs and say "do what you will", then aviation or rather GA will be driven out of existance.

AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness

Pace

Fuji Abound

1st Jul 2008, 15:12

Drambuster

I am sorry to learn of your experiences in Denmark and Sweden.

The LAA (formerly the PFA) represents a great many pilots. I suspect their representation will grow as the aircraft owners that they in particular represent grow in numbers.

The General Aviation Alliance are very active in this arena.

The PPL/IR org are most certainly concerned with GAs right to roam in Europe.

There are others.

There are some powerful alliances to be forged here. I cannot help think such alliances are even more important than AOPA bating their own wicket - a wicket on which they cannot claim to even represent a majority of UK pilots.

It is all to easy to appear to be be "doing something" and yet to completely miss the wider picture. Politicians are very good at side stepping anyone who is not representative or where the representation is fragmented. I therefore agree that on issues of this type it is vital that the GA fraternity is united - I guess that is my point - asking pilots to unite behind AOPA will just increase the divisions that already exist between an already fragmented representation which historically is clearly unable to work together. Moreover AOPA has proven singularly unable to increase its membership so (sadly) one has to doubt that unless they adopt a new (and better initiative) they are unlikely to make the progress that we would all wish for.

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 15:47

Fuji,

Out of interest, I actually had very positive experiences in Sweden - it is a great place for GA touring. I was just commenting on the mounting anti-GA political pressures they have out there and the complete failure to mount a GA counter-attack !

I would have thought that the LAA and PPL/IR org are really technical rather than political organisations and therefore might not be best placed to argue our case with politicians and security services on airfield restrictions. I'm just about to join the LAA so will soon find out if that is a misguided comment, or not !

I have vaguely heard of the General Aviation Alliance but they don't seem to come up on radar very often so I can't imagine them having much impact. When we had the issue over the Planning status of airfields being re-desigated into 'brown field' sites the real noise came from AOPA and Loop (plus the GA mags) - not the PPL/IR, LAA or GAA !

I still believe AOPA are the best way ahead for us - but if they team up with the others then all the better.

Pace: AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness

I agree !!!
Drambuster

wsmempson

1st Jul 2008, 15:57

I seem to remember a government minister remarking a few years ago that it would be great if GA spoke with "fewer voices", and reading some of the above goes to reaffirm the truth in her remark.

I attach this by way of an analogy....

YouTube - The People's Front (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE)

Personally, I think that AOPA UK do a pretty good job given how small they are compared to AOPA in the US of A. Perhaps once the PFA/LAA have decided whether they want to join forces with the BMAA they will look like a united front to be reckoned with. As an IMC holder, I share many of the aims of PPL IR, and if sure that they are a terrific organisation but, in the wider political world, an organisation with 328 members in the UK will appear at best to be a "niche" pressure group, rather than a credible body.

Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???

Fuji Abound

1st Jul 2008, 16:35

Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???

We can only wish. :)

The point I was seeking to make is some issues one can understand may be specific to individual organiations, however there are an increasing number of issues were it would seem there should be a great deal of common ground.

A "select committee" brings together the considerable expertise from all these organsiations (for example whilst the PPL/IR may be small group, they have some technically very able individuals) and perhaps more importantly I bet that committee could rightly claim to represent more than a majoirty of UK pilots.

As it is AOPA has around 4,500 members out of a UK pilot populaton reported to be 54,000 - less than 10%.

Islander2

1st Jul 2008, 17:02

Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me.In which case you have entirely misconstrued my observation!

My only point is that, combining (as he does) truly substantial experience in policing and in GA flying, Lord Stevens is a highly credible protagonist for the anti-libertarian cause. Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure.

IO540

1st Jul 2008, 17:11

If Stevens really knows how GA works (the GAR requirements, etc) then why does he write this nonsense?

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 21:09

Islander2:
Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure.

Islander 2 - if we are to follow your line of thought then the only option is to top ourselves. You have no alternative to offer yourself but to criticise me for being 'naive'. Your heart rending praise (read nauseating) for Stevens 'truly substantial experience', makes you sound like his kid brother sticking up for him in the playground

The fact of the matter is he is now taking the King's shilling from Cameron and will deliver up whatever his master tells him to. His credibility is shot to pieces by ignoring procedures of which he is fully aware (GAR reports, Flight Plans etc) just to come up with a sensationalist report to match Labour's Carlisle.

By penning this rubbish Stevens has lost his credibility so please don't waste further time on lecturing me on what a wonderfully talented and experienced bloke he is . . . . . .

DaveW

1st Jul 2008, 21:43

Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements.

drambuster (great name, BTW), whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, the above is factually incorrect.

A return to a private strip in the UK from an EU country can be legally made with 4 hours notice - Note 3 on page 3 of the GAR form (http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD_009149) refers.

I've done this many times - and long may it continue.

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 22:12

. . . .. . DaveW - that is a quote from my letter to the Telegraph, addressed to the general public (i.e not pilots), which was meant to counteract the rubbish being put about by Lord Stevens (that there is no control or involvement by the authorities on GA flights into and out of the UK). I therefore admit to a bit of positive 'spin' of my own in that I didn't cover every option under the GAR procedure such as the one you outline.

My main purpose was to make the point that there IS a procedure and that Joe Public doesn't have to lie awake at night worrying about GA as a threat. In your case there is a possibility that the 'boys in the black van' will be waiting at your strip for a friendly inspection on a return flight sometime.

If Stevens gets his way (on instructions from his paymasters) then your private strip concession will be the first to go - that is why we should back AOPA wholeheartedly to fight this on our behalf.

Drambuster

DaveW

1st Jul 2008, 22:19

Hmm. IMO, if we're complaining about inaccuracies from the politicians, it weakens our position to deliberately misrepresent the facts ourselves.

I understand that it's not a black van - it's a Mondeo. :)

drambuster

1st Jul 2008, 22:25

DaveW

. . . . . I didn't misrepresent the facts - I simply omitted to cover every nuance of the GAR/FP procedure, not least that I am aware the Daily Telegraph letters editor will chop my reply down to just a couple of lines so that was not the forum for a detailed analysis of the whole system !!

I just wanted to get the main point across and am happy to leave the detailed security analysis to AOPA :)

Johnm

2nd Jul 2008, 06:20

G-EMMA makes a good point that's been an issue since Roman times.

"quis custodiet ipsos custodes" is sometimes translated as "Who will watch the watchers" and sometimes "Who will protect us from the protectors!"

qwertyplop

2nd Jul 2008, 06:25

G-EMMA wrote.

Quote:
I'm glad someone has bothered to comment that it's the usual suspects who are incapable of sensible debate, it's put me off posting in here before now and I see nothing to change that opinion.

Perhaps it is best then not to change your post to the words of Judy Garland after someone has replied to it then proceed rant at them, not really the best way to join in on a forum debate :=

'The last word' :rolleyes:

qwertyplop

2nd Jul 2008, 08:14

What utter tripe G-EMMA. Continuing to attempt to discredit the person does not mitigate your rudeness to me throughout our exchanges. This has characterised our interaction.

I am happy to debate the issue at hand but with those happy to debate in a respectful manner.

Please do not respond to me if you are unable to continue in such a way. I respect your view believe it or not but you continue to make personal comments really not appropriate to such a forum. I believe you called me a 'troll' on a couple of occasions. Quite unacceptable and really not adding anything to this debate is it now?

Please desist, I'm aware of your views and you don't need to be unpleasant.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

2nd Jul 2008, 08:41

I'm also having bad dreams of arriving at the club to find a little hut at the entrance with a security guard who wants to search my vehicle and capture my departure on CCTV for the national database.

I share your bad dream and if the likes of the Police get their way, that is surely a possibility. An additional possibility is a CA 48 (or equivalent of) submission for every flight. I agree entirely about mistrust of the watchers and recorders; if not now, in the future if an even more totalitarian Government is voted in. My immediate concern, though, is more fundamental: who is going to pay for it? The Government through general taxation? No bloody chance! It will be us, the aviators.

Pace

2nd Jul 2008, 10:24

>but tend to get passionate about things that irritate me like loss of freedom so forgive me for that also )<

G-EMMA

Never loose your passion or apologise for it. Its the people without passion in life who must have a very dull existance.

Pace

Fuji Abound

2nd Jul 2008, 10:31

Lets get to the bones of this.

Compare a light aircraft with a white van.

The white van can be nicked from any where. None are secure, every van is vunerable. Having nicked the van there is all the time in the world to make preparations in terms of installing a bomb or other device.

An aircraft can equally be nicked, but there are some problems. There is already a greater chance someone will ask what you are doing or become suspicious. I can think of a lot of smaller airports with the A/G operator knows the voice of every owner pilot for example. Having nicked said plane if there are any preparations to be made the aircraft has to land somewhere before the "attack". The said "nicking" also requires rather more specialist knowledge than said white van.

So why would a terorists choice a light aircraft over a white van.

They both have the potential to cause chaos.

The aircraft is unlikely to cause any more chaos than the van. In fact the evidence would suggest as a delivery vehicle it is far less precise and the outcome far less predictable.

There is an exception, an obvious one concerned with aerial contamination where the light aircraft could have an "advanatge", although that advantage is not necessarily significant and is likely to be more trouble than the advantage is potentially worth.

Airports with more limited security almost without exception can handle nothing larger than a light twin. The risk associated with a larger jet is different and undoubtedly a larger jet has the ability to carry a payload significantly greater than a light twin or single. However, the security measures in place at larger airports are significanlty different to those at farm strips.

Politicians have a responsibility to deal with the evidence - if they dont they are likely to end up like Tone, fighting a war based on evidence that did not exist - hardly an accolade of which to be proud, even if it might not have been "his fault", for that he will always be remembered.

chrisN

2nd Jul 2008, 10:36

Two quotes from above:

“Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???”

“We can only wish”

They (we) do.

I could only wish that people who know little or nothing of how the various GA organisations work, how and when they work together, and why things are that way, would do a little research first instead of jumping in with both feet in ignorance.

Apart from numerous threads in the past, may I respectfully draw your attention to The General Aviation Awareness Council (http://www.gaac.co.uk) .

We have, by the way, been active on the brown field etc. issues, with AOPA, BGA, LAA etc. all working together.

Chris N.

Fuji Abound

2nd Jul 2008, 10:44

I could only wish that people who know little or nothing of how the various GA organisations work, how and when they work together, and why things are that way, would do a little research first instead of jumping in with both feet in ignorance.

You might be surprised how much some of us know.

I shall be most interested to learn of the details of GASARs submission to the Minister on this issue, and also your comments on why, given such a submission was on behalf of all the representative bodies listed on your web site, AOPA choose to make their own independent submission.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us?

chrisN

2nd Jul 2008, 11:17

To the best of my knowledge, “GASAR” is not an organisation, but an abbreviation for a study (General Aviation Small Aerodrome Research Study) carried out by Terry Lober on behalf of GAAC, funded partly by all its member bodies and partly by the government.

But as Fuji knows so much, he no doubt knew that too.

And probably why AOPA and other bodies often send their own input to Government as well as contributing to GAAC’s overview papers.

I am not going to get further into a debate – I just wish people knew (or did not write as though they don’t when they later claim they do) who does what, and why, and how organisations do cooperate as best they can under their constitutions.

Chris N.

Sven Sixtoo

2nd Jul 2008, 15:12

Hi

Having read all the way through this thread on a quiet afternoon, can I restate a couple of points already made?

Our American colleague SNS3Guppy, who seems to have faded out under the weight of some fairly unsavoury anti-US posts, had one very valid point. Now that your sport / pastime / minority mode of transport has been identified as a potential terrorist threat, it is at risk. The danger is not the physical harm that can be done using a light aircraft, though even that might be more significant than you have imagined (midair with a 747 departing 09L for HK, anyone?). It is that if some incident is perpetrated, the thing that will be done to make sure it Never Happens Again is that you will be shut down by Government order - probably the next day when shock and quivering-lipped sympathy has been replaced in the House by righteous anger. And almost nobody will care. If you think that's an exaggeration, look at what happened to pistol shooting in the UK post-Dunblane (my Browning 150 went in the smelter along with about 100,000 other guns that had never seen the outside of a shooting range, but of course the Great British Public were safer thereby, and St Tony had been seen to Do Something). The time to counter this is now, before something horrible happens, and you have to do it by demonstrating how you are being active and imaginative in preventing that horrible event. Of course the politicians are wrong on this, and trying to raise a cheap headline and a bit of support from the unthinking. That's life. YOU have to counter it - nobody else cares enough.

Second, he made the point that it's all about perception. Aviation events get more news coverage. Bombs in transit vans are old hat. As an attention-seeker the IRA have done that one to death (pardon the pun). The terrorist succeeds with a new idea that catches the imagination of the news editors. To that extent, the possibility is real.

The point has also been made that an aircraft is an incredibly useful tool for evading surveillance while getting in and out of a country. Being an honest sort of chap, and not intimately involved in the Air Defence of the UK, I haven't considered it in detail, but I doubt it's very difficult if you put your mind to it, and as the politicians said, the regulation at GA fields isn't like that at a major international airport. Again, to the extent that such activity is possible, there is a real threat. And if you the GA community approach that possibility with an attitude that it's a lot less likely than several other scenarios so nothing needs to be done, then when it does happen, you will be out of runways as fast as the Government can organise it. And nobody but you will care enough to do anything about it, and it will then be too late.

It isn't fair, but it's life. Ask any ex-pistol shooter.

Sven

Fuji Abound

2nd Jul 2008, 15:24

chrisN

I am not seeking to score cheap points - I would have thought it obvious I was referring to the GAAC - but sorry for the unintentional typo.

If you are correct (and you may well be) I am genuinely interested in a reply to my last post now we have cleared up my typographical error.

IO540

2nd Jul 2008, 16:12

Sven, you have a well argued point, but what can be done?

One needs to assume that the terrorist is going on a suicide mission. (Hard to do any damage with a light plane without killing oneself).

Should we assume he will first learn to fly?

If so, that means vetting at the flying school - like they do in America (TSA). That's not a big deal, but obviously it will detect only individuals who are either a) known to the security services or b) have a dark skin, curly hair, a beard, and walk wrapped in a bedsheet with "Death to Britain" on it while handing out leaflets supporting Al Queda and demanding that the pretty reception desk girl should cover up her t*ts.

The American vetting system (which I have been through, well and truly, having poked my fingers up the dark orifice of every fingerprint machine at the U.S. embassy on my FAA PPL/IR/CPL stuff) relies almost totally on the assumption that no born and bred American citizen will want to hit America - something which is a fair assumption in America (99%+ of Americans are genuinely proud of their country) but certainly not in Europe where - post 1939-1945 - patriotism is equated with nationalism which is a dirty word.

I have never met anybody who thinks the TSA measures actually do anything other than look like something is being done. Possibly they keep out the really obvious Muslim extremists whose money would previously have been welcome at any U.S. flying school? The TSA is completely ineffective against any American person unless he already has a record.

If OTOH we are to assume that the terrorist is not bothered about getting a PPL (easy to get airborne in a light plane if you have sim practice and some ground training) we need to look at aircraft security.

Securing airfields is impossible. Even Gatwick/Heathrow would be trivial to penetrate, in the dark, with wire cutters. It is only a fence after all. It would need to be double, electrified and have a mined strip between the fences. In any case, a vast number of people at LHR etc have airside access; many doing low grade jobs which tend to be done by foreign workers so going on "obvious appearance" gets you nowhere.

One could put locks on the planes e.g. padlocked chains over the prop. That is probably practical and is already done in the USA, I gather.

Pace

2nd Jul 2008, 17:28

Sven

Thanks for your thoughts. While I agree with what you are saying there is another part of this equation which has to be addressed.

That is the perception that Aviation = terrorism and Terrorism =Aviation
Government has latched onto that to such an extent that to be seen to be dealing with terrorism means loading aviation even further.

They already have the infrastructure in place with aviation so its easy to carry on adding bits to that infrastructure.

That is fine if it was the case that aviation = terrorism but that is far from the truth.
I have talked about the London Tubes on numerous occasions because it horrifies me at the complete lack of security in teh tubes yet the potential is there to do equal damage as in the lockerbie disaster.
Government know that to deal with the tubes would be an impossibility and would bring London to a standstill so they close their eyes and continue with what they know and have an infrastructure well in place.

The message that has to come out is that enough is enough. Until the press start writing articles on the time bomb waiting in the tubes and deflecting attention from aviation, Government will continue taking its easy option.

I am afraid that cooperating and lying on ones back will mean we will cooperate ourselves into non existance.

Its the perception that has to change and that will only change when 200 people die in the tubes or the media start attacking all the other danger areas to security to an extent that the government are forced to redirect their attention.

That I fear is the reality

Pace